Preamble

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair at Ten o'clock a.m.

DIVORCE REFORM BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question —[6th December, 1968]—

That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question again proposed.

10.0 a.m.

Mr. Marcus Worsley: When the debate was adjourned 10 days ago, I was speaking and in my last sentence I was saying:
… I think it essential that the Government should take their responsibilities related to—"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1968; Vol. 774, c. 2056.]
At that point, and very properly because it was Four o'clock, you called me to order, Mr. Speaker. I know that there has been wide speculation as to what the Government's responsibilities were related to and I now propose to reveal to the House exactly what that was.
I was about to urge the Government to take seriously their responsibilities towards this Bill. Since then, the Government have taken the very serious step of giving time to the Bill. Although some of my hon. Friends, and no doubt other hon. Members, will not agree with me, I do not take the view that Governments should never give time for Private Members' Bills. Our system of legislating on this sort of moral and social issue leaves a great deal to be desired and I should like a different system. But, as long as we keep the present chancy system, with its assinine reliance on a ballot—and I am not in any way attempting to be rude to the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones)—the fact that whether we legislate on issues of this importance depends on the whim of a ballot is perfectly extraordinary. As long as we keep this present chancy system, there will be occasions when, quite properly, the Government may take over a Bill, which I suggest would be the right course on this occasion, and there may be other times when they should give time to a Private Member's Bill.
But they ought to give proper Government time, not put on the Bill at the end of a day whether it is debated overnight, as was the case in the last Session but one with two extremely important Bills—and who can honestly say that those Measures are as good as they ought to have been and would have been if they had been properly discussed at the proper time?—or, still more in these idiotic and truncated morning sittings when many hon. Members for obvious reasons cannot be here. If the Government give time to a Private Member's Bill, they should give their own time and not create bogus time at the end of a day's sitting.
Secondly—and this is a point which I want to stress most strongly—once the Government give time for a Private Member's Bill, they accept moral responsibility for it. I am not suggesting that every detail of the legislation becomes a matter of Government responsibility and a proper subject for a three-line whip and still less that it becomes a matter of party policy. What I am saying is that by this action the Government take responsibility for the broad principles of the Bill. They take responsibility for the effectiveness of its drafting and for its workability. By their action yesterday, the Government are now responsible for the workability of the legal machinery now proposed.
I am not a lawyer and I do not propose to say anything about this, but I know that many lawyers are extremely concerned about the actual procedure to be prescribed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General is now responsible for seeing that the machinery of the Bill is workable.
Above all—and this is the human side of it—the Government are now responsible for the well being of those many thousands of innocent wives who, if the obnoxious Clause 2 (1) (e) were left in the Bill, would find their rights reduced because shared with another woman or other women.
I find my sentence which you interrupted 10 days ago, Mr. Speaker, even more relevant now than then, and I hope that the Solicitor-General will seriously address himself to this aspect.
I freely admit that I approach the Bill with a strong prejudice against divorce.
It seems to me from observation that all too often people get divorced for quite inadequate reasons and that often after such a divorce the partners pair up again, or that one of the partners, leaving the other in the cold, pairs up with an extraordinarily similar person, and to all outward appearance the second marriage to the rest of the world is the same as the first and nothing has been solved. Easy and acceptable divorce encourages people to divorce as an apparently easy option whereas in reality nothing is solved by a divorce of that character. I further believe that divorce nearly always puts the supposed happiness of the parents before the actual happiness of the children. I believe, finally, that divorce is contagious and that the contagion is often handed on to later generations.
Of course, I accept that except for Clause 2 (1) (e) the Bill does not seek directly to increase the number of divorces. I appreciate that that is not the object. But it is in fact a Bill to make divorce easier. I believe that it will therefore make more divorces and I am therefore opposed to it.
It is a double Bill, with two aspects, and although I do not accuse its supporters today, the two have been intentionally confused by some people. First, the Bill is to alter what might be called the law and procedure of divorce. The second, quite separately, is to make easier grounds for divorce. In the latter category it introduces something utterly new, namely, a divorce against their wishes and without their agreement of wholly innocent people who wish to maintain their marriages while their partners do not.
This latter proposition has often been put to the House. The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) had a Bill on this matter in the 1959–64 Parliament. When this issue has been put to the House straight, the House has always rejected it. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oldham. West (Mr. Bruce Campbell) put the reasons very forcefully in the earlier part of the debate. I hope that whatever else happens, we shall not accept what I regard as this monstrous proposition as part of a package deal under the general heading of reform. I hope that we shall look carefully at this particular

issue, this one radical change in the law proposed here. The House has considered this on its merits before and has always rejected it. I believe that it would be right to reject it once more.

Mr. Leo Abse: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect in his recollection. The House accepted the principle in the Bill when it gave a Second Reading to the 1963 Bill.

Mr. Worsley: If the hon. Gentleman remembers even more carefully, this was a fairly short debate, and the Bill went through without a great deal of discussion. Before it got further, the hon. Gentleman withdrew this particular aspect of the Bill, because he knew what the opposition was.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Does my hon. Friend not recall the earlier attempt this year to get a Bill through which received a Second Reading? Is that not another example of the principle being accepted by the House?

Mr. Worsley: The point that I was trying to make is that last year the whole Bill received a Second Reading. The Bill took, as many of our procedures in this House do, a great many people outside by surprise. Many were concerned, particularly womens' organisations who had not tumbled to the significance of this part of the Bill. When they became aware of that, there was a great howl of protest from womens' organisations across the country.
I turn to the procedure in the courts. I am extremely sceptical about the practical effect of what is proposed. It is sometimes said that this proposal for making the breakdown of marriage the sole ground of divorce derives from an Anglican parentage. There is a superficial similarity, and a similarity in the words used, with the report, "Putting Asunder", issued under the auspices of the Church of England. But the differences between this Bill and that report are critical.
Anyone who has read the report knows it to be a brilliant, stimulating and, more unusually, a well-written report. It will also be realised that the actual practical provisions made in it were wholly impractical. It envisaged a kind of Utopian


investigation, what the Law Commission called an inquest into every broken marriage That was the central idea of the report, but the law cannot operate in this way and I accept that. This concept of an inquest into each marriage plays no part in the Bill. The Bill uses the words "breakdown of marriage" from the report, but takes away the procedure, namely the inquest, that gave that term meaning.
It is Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark. That is why we return to the matrimonial offence. Under the present law, divorce is granted because of a matrimonial offence. Under the Bill it would be granted because of breakdown of marriage, but how would that be assessed? The commission of a matrimonial offence would be shown. I do not believe that this reform is of very great significance. At root it is playing with words. It may be worth doing—I am not saying that it is not—but I do not think that it will be very significant.
The real changes are the introduction of two new major grounds for divorce, the so-called divorce by consent under Clause 2 (1) (d) and divorce without consent under Clause 2 (1) (e). There is a considerable softening of desertion, from three to two years. These are the real issues upon which I suggest the House should concentrate its attention. In my opinion, they add up to a Bill for easier divorce, and therefore I oppose it.

10.15 a.m.

Mr. David Weitzman: I will not follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) in his criticism of the Government for having given time to deal with this Bill. As has been pointed out, the principle was accepted in 1962 and 1968, by a large majority. It was merely because the Session ended before all the stages of the Bill could be completed that this Bill did not become law. The Government are well justified in providing time and I am glad that they have done so.
The hon. and learned Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell) condemned this Bill and said that he would fight it at every stage. He prefaced his remarks by saying that he had spent his life practising exclusively at the divorce Bar since the war, and therefore this was a topic about which he

knew a little. He drew upon his experience to condemn the Bill. May I, with equal modesty, claim to have some knowledge of divorce work. I have practised at the Bar for over 46 years, and during that period, before and after the war, I have been engaged in many divorce cases.
My view, from my experience, is entirely the opposite of that of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I regard this Bill as a long overdue Measure which will not undermine the sanctity of marriage, but, on the contrary, will help to make it more of a reality and will bring happiness and relief to thousands of couples who are living in so-called sin, as well as the blessings, such as they are, of legitimacy, to many children. I had the honour of supporting the Bill brought in by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) in 1951, which was withdrawn by her on the promise of a Royal Commission. I was also able to participate in the debate on Second Reading and the subsequent stages of the Bill brought by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse).
My regret is that their main efforts did not succeed. I remember in the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill brought in by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool, advancing the argument that it was absurd to base the granting of a divorce on the commission of a matrimonial offence, that one instance of adultery would provide grounds for divorce; yet the clear un-happiness of the spouses, their condemnation to a life of incompatibility and misery would not permit their separation unless they could prove that it was due to guilt on the part of either of them, so as to establish the matrimonial offence of cruelty. I pleaded then that there should be substituted for the matrimonial offence the obvious thing that mattered, that the marriage had irretrievably broken down.
We must recognise the truth of the observations, in the Report of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce that:
… the law of divorce as it at present exists is indeed weighted in favour of the least scrupulous, the least honourable and the least sensitive; and that nobody who is ready to provide a ground of divorce, who is careful to avoid any suggestion of connivance or collusion and


who has a co-operative spouse, has any difficulty in securing the dissolution of the marriage.
In "Putting Asunder" it is said that:
… the law as it stands is unsatisfactory. As a piece of social mechanism the present system has not only cut loose from its moral and judicial foundations, it is quite simply inept.
This is the system, with all its obvious hypocrisy, that the hon. and learned Member would uphold. The attempt to put it on an honest basis as described is disgraceful.
What does the Bill seek to do? In Clause 1 it puts at the forefront, clearly and simply, that the sole ground for divorce is that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. If it has irretrievably broken down, why should it be allowed to continue? Should it be allowed to continue for the sake of either of the parties? That would surely mean a life of unhappiness for both, chained together and chafing at their links.
Should it be allowed to continue for the sake of the children? What could be worse in the upbringing of children than obvious discontent and strife between parents who cannot get on—their glaring distaste and dislike for each other, the very negation of family life? Should it be allowed to continue on the ground of the sanctity of marriage tie? Surely that would mean sacrificing the happiness of people to a false belief, for how can there be sanctity when any belief in it has departed?
It has been argued by some that the ground should be the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage simpliciter. In theory, I support that, but obviously its determination would impose too great and too vague a task on our judges. The promoter of the Bill has wisely followed the provisions in the previous Bill in setting out guidelines which will assist the judge in coming to a decision. The provisions in Section 2 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1965, will still remain. Thus, unless there are special grounds of exceptional hardship or exceptional depravity and the court permits it, no one may petition for a divorce unless the marriage has endured for three years.
That will, in effect, mean that, although in the Bill the desertion period is reduced to two years, an unopposed divorce may be granted when the parties have lived

apart for two years, and Clause 2 (1) (e) permits a dissolution when they have lived apart for a continuous period of five years; in most cases, the duration of the marriage may well be considerably longer than those periods.
What is the objection to divorce by consent when the parties have lived apart for at least two years? As the hon. and learned Member for Oldham, West observed, when spouses part on a consensual basis one of them will come to the divorce court—and here I use the hon. and learned Gentleman's words—and try to "dress up" the separation as if it were desertion by the other party. He had perforce to agree that he would be in favour of an alteration in our law which permitted divorce by consent after a time. As long ago as 1912, the King's Proctor, in giving evidence before the Royal Commission, said that 75 per cent. of divorces were obtained by consent. The provision in the Bill will help to get rid of the hypocrisy and perjury which now undoubtedly attend divorce petitions and will assist in putting them on a true basis.
The most cogent evidence that a marriage has irretrievably broken down is that the parties have lived apart for a continuous period of at least five years. It is said against this that it is wrong to give relief to a guilty person against an innocent spouse. In how many cases can it be said that one party is wholly guilty and the other wholly innocent? What is the sense of keeping a party tied to something which does not exist in reality with the other party being condemned to live in sin, often with children who are illegitimate?
It is said that the unwilling spouse will suffer financially. I agree with my hon. Friends that considerable change should be made in our National Insurance regulations, but I do not think that this reform must await such a change. Hon. Members must remember the position of wives divorced by husbands as it is today. The Bill provides as ample safeguards as can be provided. For example, there are the provisions in Clause 6 for the financial protection of the respondent. In my view, those provisions might well provide a far better financial safeguard than exists today. There are excellent provisions in Clause 3 designed to encourage reconciliation,


and there is the overriding consideration in Clause 2 (3) that if the evidence shows that the marriage has not irretrievably broken down a decree will not be granted.
To those who say that if the Bill is passed the institution of marriage will be in danger I point out the similar provisions in Australia and New Zealand which have been part of the law in those countries for many years. No one can suggest that in Australia and New Zealand there is in marriage other than a holy alliance entered into for life and, in the majority of cases, remaining so. When the Bill becomes law it will still be the same in this country.
We are endebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) for the good use to which he has put his luck in the ballot. I congratulate him, and I hope that the Bill will be upon the Statute Book in the near future.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: Before my hon. and learned Friend sits down, may I ask him a question relating to his observations near the end of his speech? The Bill arouses sympathy and one wants to do the right thing in deciding whether to support it. My hon. and learned Friend referred to financial provision. This is something which causes me anxiety. Would he say that Clause 6 protects a spouse who has had a divorce when it comes to her share of her husband's retirement pension? For example, I think of the—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions must be brief.

Mr. Wilkins: Unless I explain the point, Mr. Speaker, I doubt whether my hon. and learned Friend will understand exactly what I am getting at. Take a case such as that about which we read in the newspapers the other day. A man goes off, after 40 years of married life, with a young woman. He had accumulated pension rights to which his wife would have been entitled, or as a widow if anything had happened to him. Do those rights go to the young woman, or does she get any share of them?

Mr. Weitzman: I do not wish to take up too much time in dealing with this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] The judge has power under the Bill to make arrangements for the spouse which

are as satisfactory as possible from the financial point of view. Moreover, I have said that it will be possible under the Bill to make a much more satisfactory arrangement than can be made at present.

10.28 a.m.

Sir Lionel Heald: I speak with a great sense of responsibility and with some sadness. I have been in favour of divorce reform for many years. I always hoped that we would see a Bill, which was agreed and which had the Government's full support, dealing with all these problems, one very good example of which has just been mentioned and which would have involved a good deal of give and take. I am sorry to say that I have come to the conclusion that the steamroller approach will be adopted in this instance. There will be no serious consideration of major Amendments.
I said some weeks ago that I hoped that we could approach this matter on the basis of widespread agreement on the principle of some degree of divorce by consent, combined with the conception of irretrievable breakdown. I hoped that on that basis we could say that the Bill could have a Second Reading and go to Committee where we would be assured that the totally different matter of divorce against consent might be considered with a completely open and impartial mind, not only on the moral side, but on the question of financial protection, which the hon. and learned Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) appropriately raised in his intervention. I think it is now clear that if the Bill receives a Second Reading, it will be steamrollered through Committee. I hope that the Committee will have an opportunity of preventing that, but it is a very difficult matter, as we found last year.
I should like to speak as briefly as I may because I know that a great many other hon. Members wish to speak. It is most unfortunate that again, in the way the Government have treated the Bill, we have too limited time available today. I shall have to try to compress my remarks. It is a difficult and complicated subject but I will do my best in that way.
The point of view which I represent today is that of many women, and I would like to explain what it is. We regard as a legitimate objective in the


Bill the recognition of what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell) described as some degree of divorce by consent, because we consider that that is allowable and unfortunately inevitable in these days. As my hon. and learned Friend told the House when speaking from his unrivalled experience, it is commonplace today for two spouses who both want a divorce to adopt expedients and pretences which are not only inherently deceitful but which also seriously damage the reputation of British justice. We have no doubt about it.
There are considerable differences of opinion about the application of the principle of divorce by consent, such as whether the period should be two or three years and the effect to be given to the existence of small children. Those, however, are Committee points. It is quite wrong to regard the conflict as being a conflict about divorce by consent. That position has not been properly recognised in the discussions in the Press.
The point that concerns us—and by "us" I mean those whose view I believe that I represent—is a quite different one. In the Bill as it stands, one has not only divorce by consent, but the very opposite—many people think that the word "principle" is not appropriate but let us assume that it is applicable—not by consent, but against the will of one of the spouses, however innocent. at the request and for the benefit of the other spouse, however guilty.
My concern, therefore, is with ground (e) rather than with ground (d). It is that "unilateral" or compulsory ground to which many women object and which is causing a large number of women grave tears. That being the situation, it should be agreed in the House of Commons that their objections to it should be fully and impartially considered. I say that in all seriousness because I feel, as I have felt on several occasions in recent years, that in this House today—and in the Press—the women's point of view, particularly on moral and human issues, is sometimes given far too little attention.
I heard a striking speech the other day by a young woman on the question of women's rights in which she referred particularly to the Bill. She said, with

great applause from her large audience, that at the rate at which we are going, women will soon feel impelled to start another movement which would make the suffragettes of Edwardian days look like gentle Iambs.
Following that, I was interested and not altogether surprised to read a leading article in the Sunday Times last Sunday in which presumably the editor, or someone speaking on his behalf, wrote off the women's point of view on the Bill as "feminist hostility". One would have thought that that was a rather square Edwardian view and that the Sunday Times was a little more up-to-date. I look forward to reading—I am sure that they will be printed—some letters from women expressing their point of view in that connection. It is utterly wrong that we should have that kind of attitude. We must try to understand what these women are concerned about and see whether we can honestly say that they are not right.
Why do they object to this ground of compulsory divorce? First and foremost, strange as it may appear to some of those who are enthusiastic supporters of the Bill, it offends against three of the fundamental maxims of British justice which, I hope, we want to maintain. The first is that no one may take advantage of his own wrong; the second is that hard cases make bad law; and the third is that there must not be one law for the rich and another for the poor.
As regards the first of those maxims, I merely remind the House of what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oldham, West said. It will be a bad day for Britain when our law not only permits, but actually encourages, a man to force his wife into a divorce for the sole purpose of allowing him to marry another woman, and to do so every five years without making proper provision for the wives and children.
Sir Alan Herbert has been referred to on several occasions, and very rightly, in support of the idea of divorce by consent, but in the article which he wrote at the beginning of this controversy he expressed himself in practically the same words as my hon. and learned Friend. Sir Alan Herbert cannot be quoted as a supporter of the idea of compulsory divorce.
Let us face it squarely that that is what the sponsors of the Bill are asking Parliament to do. It is surely the acme of permissiveness. That may be what we want today, but I do not believe that it is what the country wants. That issue should be considered seriously and carefully.

Mr. John Page: rose —

Sir L. Heald: I am sorry, I have very little time to give way.
The only justification which is put forward—and this may well be what will be asked—I said is that of what is called the blackmail or dog-in-the-manger type of case where one spouse maliciously refuses to consent. There, of course, the second maxim comes in: that hard cases make bad law. The hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger), who, I am sorry to see, is absent, would probably say that she does not like legal maxims, so for her benefit I will give an alternative from a source which, I think, even she would regard as respectable:
Thou shalt not do evil that good may come.
If the sponsors were willing to consider it—but they have shown clearly that they are not—it might be possible, to some extent, to meet that point by a provision such as we have in the landlord and tenant world, where it is provided that consent to an assignment by a tenant "shall not be unreasonably withheld". That possibility has been raised, and it has been shot down rather contemptuously by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), and others. They will not have their sacred principle invaded. That being so, I shall not have the opportunity of a friendly discussion on it, and in those circumstances I can only oppose the Bill which will contain something which I regard as thoroughly unjust.
Then there is the third maxim, which speaks for itself. Clause 6 (2) (b) says that the financial provision has to be fair and reasonable,
or the best that can be made in the circumstances".
It is astonishing that Parliament is being asked to enact those words, when we know the position in which these people

will find themselves. The word "or" means an alternative. Although it is not fair and reasonable, it is all there is.

Dr. Hugh Gray: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether, if he reads Clause 6 in conjunction with Clause 4, he does not agree that it could be argued that together they will make divorce much more difficult than it is, and not easier?

Sir L. Heald: I think that the hon. Gentleman is approaching the Bill in the way in which I should like to see it approached. I should like there to be a discussion to see whether we can amend the wording and improve it. But let us be quite clear about this. Whenever anything of that kind is said, one sees heads being shaken in disagreement. There will be no question of discussing Amendments, and that is why the House has to face this matter today.
One other vitally important matter is this question of financial protection. This is vital in the view of many women who look on their prospects with grave fears. I have had many letters from people who say that they know what will happen to them if the Bill is passed. I shall not occupy the House with details, but at my request I have been provided, by an expert on this subject who deals with this matter for one of the largest women's organisations in the country, with a list of the subjects which will have to be taken into consideration, and people advised about, and about which we want advice from the Government, but shall not get.
What will happen about widows' pensions? And we have heard about such matters as settlements. What will happen about compensation for injuries, and things of that kind? What will happen about Service pensions, public servants and pensioners in local authorities and the Civil Service? What will happen about National Health Insurance, and so on? Some progress has been made about the matrimonial home, but the matter is still to some extent in the melting pot. Above all, what will be the position with regard to housing and social security?
We asked questions about those matters in Committee on the last Bill. The Solicitor-General, with his usual


courtesy, helped us through some of the legal morass, but when we asked what the Government's view was about social security, the hon. and learned Gentleman frankly admitted that he could not help us In view of what has been said, I think it is right and proper that I should remind the House of what the Solicitor General said in Committee:
We have … the safeguards spelled out in the Bill in Clause 5 and the provisions of Clause 7, but it is true, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman perfectly fairly reminded the Committee, that the provision in Clause 7 is in the terms 'that the financial provision made by the petitioner for the respondent is reasonable and fair or the best that can be made in the circumstances'.
The best, of course, may be very little indeed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 22nd May, 1968; c. 415–6.]
The Solicitor-General also dealt with the question of a spouse who was divorced after five years' separation. I had said:
These are grave matters which we shall be debating. If this were a Government Bill we should require to know from a Minister what exactly the Government were intending to bring in in the way of fresh legislation. Is new machinery to be provided here?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 15th May, 1968, c. 368.]
To that the Solicitor-General replied:
The Government will obviously want to study the Bill's provisions in order to consider their bearing upon social security if the Bill becomes law. I cannot go further than that in response to the question put to me by the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey, but that is the position as I see it and as I offer it to the Committee.
Earlier on the Solicitor-General had said
… if I may speak colloquially,
this is
one of those cart before the horse issues … "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 22nd May, 1968; c. 416.]
I thought that there was no doubt about it. The trouble was that there was no horse in the cart, but a lot of people will be in the cart if the Bill goes through.
Today we are in a similar position. There is no Minister present who can speak on that subject. I have been a Law Officer, and not only was I never asked, but I never would have agreed, to speak on such a matter. It is the business of the appropriate Minister to be here. The Bill will now go to Committee. Will the appropriate Ministers

attend our discussions there? If they do, will not they say, "But the principle of the Bill has been accepted; therefore, we cannot delete this provision now"?
I said that the Bill could well be said to deserve a Second Reading. It could, if we could have some assurance that the steamroller will not be applied, and it will be said, "You did not vote against it on Second Reading". We have heard that argument before. Unless a different attitude is adopted in replying to the debate—and we know who is going to reply—and unless we get real satisfaction about what the Government intend to do, I do not see any alternative but to vote against the Bill.

10.48 a.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): It might be helpful if at this stage I state the Government's attitude to the Bill. I intervene rather earlier than it had been my intention to do because of the observations made by the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald). The Government's attitude to the Bill is the same as it was to a similar Bill introduced in the last Session by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. William Wilson)—that is to say, an attitude of neutrality.
It is right and natural that that should be so. We are considering a matter of the greatest importance, but it is not a party issue. For anyone to express the view that the matter of divorce reform raises party issues is for that person to reveal a total failure to understand the character of the controversy. It is not a party matter at all and that has been made clear in the whole history of the consideration of the last Bill, in speeches and Divisions upon the Bill, and in all the controversy that has taken place.
Having said that. I come to the question of the attitude of the Government towards timing. I appreciate that this is a factor which many hon. Members have in mind and I will deal with the issue in the context of what I have said about this not being a party matter. In my submission, the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley), with great mistake—I say this with due respect to him—expressed the view that the Government's attitude to time in the consideration of the Measure meant that the Government


ceased to be neutral and took responsibility for the content of the Bill. I do not for a moment accept that. Although it may be an arguable point, I wish to make it clear that I do not accept it.
It is perfectly proper and reasonable for the Government to take the position that this issue is a matter of great social importance to the country to which it is desirable, especially having regard to the amount of consideration that it has received in recent years, that the House should come to a conclusion.

Mr. Simon Mahon: If that is the case, why have not the Government had the courage to introduce the Bill themselves?

The Solicitor-General: The question of courage does not arise here. This is a matter of great importance in terms of social policy and social conduct in this country. It is a non-party matter and, in that context, the Government are facilitating the opportunity which the House has to arrive at a conclusion. I submit that that is a perfectly proper attitude for the Government to take.

Sir Cyril Osborne: The hon. and learned Gentleman must face up to the fact that there are many Private Members' Bills before the House and many important early day Motions on the Notice Paper. Every Thursday we ask the Leader of the House to provide time to debate these matters, though not necessarily in the coming week. The Government are finding time for this Measure and are thereby giving it priority over everything else. Thus it becomes a Government Bill, except that the Government will not put their name to it.

The Solicitor-General: It does not become a Government Bill—[Interruption.] I heard one of my hon. Friends say that this was a major issue. I agree. One must consider the relative matters that arise in Measures before the House; and obviously this is a Bill which raises questions which it is desirable, in the public interest, should be answered.
There can be no question of adopting a steamroller approach to this matter. The right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) used that expression and somewhat surprised me by

doing so. There is no suggestion of which I know of a steamroller approach being adopted. That was not the characteristic of the Committee stage which we had in the last Session. I have no reason to think it is likely to be the characteristic or the attitude of the Committee stage in the consideration of the present Bill.
What is wanted is a firm and clear decision by the House on a matter which has long occupied its attention, has long received the consideration of hon. Members and which, in the general interest, it is thought should be decided upon. That is the attitude we take. I feel satisfied that it is a perfectly fair and reasonable one and, once again, I assure the House that there is no question of a steamroller approach being adopted.
Our consideration of this whole subject in the last Session took place, I think it will be agreed, in the context of general agreement that the existing state of the divorce law has certain unsatisfactory features and that reform of some of them is called for. That view was widely held in the last Session and it applies today. My impression is that, on the whole—looking back on the proceedings in the last Session—hon. Members moved, in different degrees of course, in the direction of a common attitude towards large parts of the problems which are involved. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to see that being acknowledged by hon. Gentlemen opposite who served on the Standing Committee. That was an admirable feature of our proceedings in Committee last Session, at which I was in attendance the whole time.
Although no party issue arises, the Government feel that where there are signs of widespread agreement that reform is called for and where the social importance of the issues which we are discussing are so great, it is right that time should be made available for the House to reach a decision on the Bill. After all, on any showing plenty of study and thought have been given to this matter over a long period of time. In its later stages, that study and talk have been founded mainly on the Report of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Committee and on the work of the Law Commission. One hopes, therefore, that it will prove possible for a decision on


the principle of the Bill to be reached this morning.
This Bill, like its predecessor, bears the imprint of the recommendations of both the Report of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Committee and the Law Commission's Report. I have used the phrase "guidelines" to describe how the earlier matrimonial offences play their part in the new issue of whether a marriage has irretrievably broken down. Hon. Members who have been considering this matter may be interested to know—I do not hesitate to tell the House this—that for a long time I viewed with great hesitation and doubt the desirability of abandoning the central concept of the matrimonial offence. However, I have now come to the conclusion that the introduction of the concept of irretrievable breakdown is a welcome development in our treatment of this problem.
In theory, it can be argued that introducing the additional aspect of irretrievable breakdown as something required over and above the old matrimonial offences makes divorce in some respects more and not less difficult to achieve. On any showing, however, it makes it a more overt and honest, and a less secretive, process.
It may be helpful if I indicated the main features of my hon. Friend's Bill which distinguished it from the Bill which was introduced last Session, and I will mention in this connection some matters of particular importance. The earlier Bill gave a discretion to the court to dismiss a petition in a case where a petitioner attempted to deceive the court. The Standing Committee voted that that Clause should not stand part of the Bill, and it is a matter of record that, in doing so, it acted against the advice which I had offered to it. The Division on that issue, as on nearly every other issue with which the Standing Committee was concerned, showed that party differences were not the decisive factor. Hon. Members of both parties voted on each side in that Division and, I think that it will be found, in nearly every other Division in that Committee.
That view taken by the Committee has been adopted by my hon. Friend, and the Clause in the earlier Bill which gave a discretion to the court to dismiss

a petition in the case of deception does not appear in his Bill. In both Bills provision has been made that, where proof of irretrievable breakdown based on the fact that the parties have lived apart for two years and the respondent does not object to a decree being granted, the court has power to rescind a decree where a petitioner has misled the respondent. In the former Bill, the misleading referred to the financial position in which the respondent would be placed. The present Bill goes wider, and gives power to rescind a decree where the petitioner misleads the respondent about any matter which the respondent took into account in deciding not to object to the grant of a decree.
The hon. and learned Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell) referred to the possible consequences of the Bill on legal aid expenditure. The position is that the Legal Aid Advisory Committee has indicated that the additional cost may be in the order of £400,000 in a full year. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is at present considering the report of that Committee and will be giving careful attention to these matters. I am, therefore, not in a position at this stage to comment.

Mr. Bruce Campbell: Can the Solicitor-General tell the House whether the Government approve of the expenditure of £400,000 a year if the Bill is enacted?

The Solicitor-General: I shall not add to what I have said; that my noble Friend is considering the report of the committee to which I have referred; that he will be giving careful attention to the matter, and that I am not in a position to add to that. The House would not expect, I think, that I should.
One general point should be made about legal aid. If Parliament decides that the law of divorce is in need of reform, I suggest that it is hardly fair that the reform should be resisted and people denied their rights in the courts on the sole ground that it would put additional expenditure on the Legal Aid Fund. When I say that, I am not for one moment detracting from the importance of the point about the cost to legal aid. I only say that in a matter of this importance it has to be considered in proper perspective.

Mr. Worsley: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman indicate whether the whole £ 400,000 extra will result from additional divorce under Clause 2 (1) (e) or whether the Advisory Committee expects that additional divorce will result from other parts of the Bill?

The Solicitor-General: My understanding is that the Legal Aid Advisory Committee has made this estimate of the additional costs likely to arise if, broadly, the provisions of the Bill become law.
In our earlier consideration of the whole matter it was recognised that the proposed changes in the law might involve important consequences from the point of view of social security benefits and financial arrangements. I think that it was widely felt, and understandably so, that if, for example, a wife living apart from her husband found herself divorced without consent at the expiry of the five year period, her position financially deserved careful consideration. For example, if, after the divorce, her husband died, the question of her entitlement to widow's pension on her husband's card might have been affected by the divorce. This point was helpfully taken by my hon. Friend earlier today.
It was also widely felt that the need to safeguard the position of spouses in this respect was certainly not entirely satisfactorily met by the provision, in general terms, that a decree could be refused if it were to result in grave financial or other hardship to the respondent. The position of divorced women has not been overlooked in the planning of the new insurance scheme, and it is being considered at the moment by the Government against that background of possible changes in the law of divorce. That is what I have to say to the House on this important point.
It is obviously not possible at this stage, in advance of the publication of the White Paper on the Government's proposals, to give any indication of what changes may be made. What I do ask is that the House should—and I think it perfectly right and reasonable that it should—proceed to the consideration of the provisions of the Bill in the context of an assurance that these matters are the subject of contemporary current consideration, and that that consideration

is taking place against the background to which I have just referred.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: This is a very important matter. Are the Government taking fully into account the fact that this provision would mean a great increase in divorce and, therefore, a considerable increase in the cost of the Welfare State? It would, indeed, create a new arm of the Welfare State. Are the Government, in their present situation, in a position to accept this increase with equanimity? Can they disregard the cost, or are they assessing the actual cost at this stage? It is important to know.

The Solicitor-General: The consideration which the Government are giving to this matter takes into account the estimated cost in terms of social service benefits resulting from the provisions of the Bill if it becomes law. In this connection, I quite agree with the observation made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chertsey, who indicated, if I may say so, with the wisdom one would expect from him, that when he had responsibilities of a kind similar to mine he would not have thought it appropriate to have taken upon himself the treatment of these matters of social benefits and social insurance as affecting this matter.
I do not want—and I say it quite candidly—to get involved in it. I have made careful inquiry about it because of my responsibilities in this debate. I have formed certain impressions of the nature of the overall increment to social security benefits that would be involved by the changes proposed. What I can say without any hesitation is that the whole matter is being considered now by the Government, and is being considered in the context of the very proposals set out in the Bill.

Sir Myer Galpern (Glasgow, Shettle-ston): In view of the very important statement now made by my right hon. and learned Friend—I appreciate that he does not want to go into any depth in trying to indicate what kind of financial proposals will be brought forward in any forthcoming legislation on social security—and in view of the fact that opposition to certain aspects of the Bill by some hon. and right hon. Members and a whole army of organisations stems


from the fact that there is no specific reference to the financial arrangements, would it not be advisable that this Bill should be deferred until such time as we have an opportunity to study those proposals? In that respect the Bill might then get a far smoother passage through this House.

The Solicitor-General: I see no reason whatever why consideration of the Bill should be deferred because of what I have said. What I have said is a ground and a reason for not deferring consideration of the Bill. It is entirely for the House to consider the merits of that. What I have done this morning is to indicate as clearly as I can and I hope without any equivocation the position of the Government.

Mr. Ian Percival: I have much sympathy with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said about not going into more detail, and I am sure that the House is obliged to him for informing us that something is under consideration. I wonder if he could go a little further and tell us when we may expect more positive information. He may not be in a position to say, but may we expect the White Paper soon? Hon. Members are quite right in saying that this is very important in regard to the timing of consideration of the Bill.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member has put that point with characteristic courtesy. I do not suppose that he is any more content than I am with the word "soon". I think it better that I should ask him to be satisfied with my assurance that this matter is currently and contemporaneously in our consideration and having the attention and consideration of the Government.
I trust that my indication of the Government's attitude to this Bill will assist hon. Members on both sides of the House to come to a decision and conclusion on the merits of the Bill.

11.14 a.m.

Dame Joan Vickers: As one of the sponsors of the Bill I regret that the Government appear to have no social conscience. A similar Bill was brought forward in Australia by the Attorney-General there. I thought that the Bill before the House would be

debated with the Whips off. The action of the Government is regrettable, although I am glad that we have time to discuss the Bill again.
I was interested in the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) about women. I am chairman of a committee which co-ordinates 23 women's organisations. If there had been the sort of outcry from them which has been suggested, they might have removed me from my chairmanship. They have had plenty of time now to take this matter into account and I have not noticed any such strong opposition.

Sir L. Heald: Does not my hon. Friend know that the National Council of Women has circulated to all hon. Members a statement saying that it will not support any proposal which would make divorce inevitable after five years' separation and that divorce should be granted only when the circumstances prevailing at the latter date make it reasonable and just?

Dame Joan Vickers: The Council has circulated all hon. Members. It is as concerned as I am about financial aspects, but it says that divorce should be available on proof that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, and that is one of the things we want to prove.
I find it difficult to speak on this Bill because I feel rather like a Minister who refers back to a question he has previously answered. I feel like referring back to my speech on 9th February because I have not changed my mind in regard to the original proposals. I would like to refer hon. Members to some figures. Just over 93 per cent. of divorce cases in 1966 were undefended and the majority of cases were adultery. A small percentage of wives and a few husbands resisted dissolution of their marriages and the defended cases were more often cases of cruelty or desertion. Divorces were granted in 27,000 cases which were made up in the following way: adultery over 21,000, 10,700 by wife and 10,300 by husband; desertion 11,000, 5,295 by wives and 5,773 by husbands; cruelty 6,934, 405 by wives and 6,529 by husbands; other causes 165, 62 by wives and 103 by husbands. The vulnerable age for a marriage to break up 23 or 24.
I agree with the Attorney-General in Australia, Sir Garfield Barwick, who described the philosophy underlying his Act as a stable and sound marriage being indispensable to the maintenance of our way of life. By "stable and sound marriage" he meant a real relationship playing its part in the organic life of the community. Therefore, a formal bond which has no vitality, where the spouses are irreconcilably estranged apart from each other, is not performing the social function of stable and sound marriage in our society. Therefore, the means of dissolving the formal bond when all chance of reconciliation or restoration of vitality of the marriage has completely disappeared has to be found. There is plenty of chance for reconciliation under Clause 3 in this Bill.
I now refer to something which has not been mentioned recently, the work done by probation officers. There has been a very interesting meeting in the South-West group on this matter. It is a statutory duty of the Divorce Court welfare officer, of whom I think there are 46, to undertake this work. It varies according to the courts and according to how many cases are referred to them. The number of cases referred in 1966 was 6,587 overall and those referred to other officers amounted to 1,487 reports. There is the admitted unevenness in the decisions of which case to refer to these officers.
I have some misgiving about Clause 3, which says that the names and addresses should be given by solicitors of those to whom the parties can go. There is no proof that they ever go or that those to whom they are referred will be the right people to effect a reconciliation. The hon. Member who sponsored the Bill last time knows the views which I expressed in Committee. Anyone in this House, particularly, perhaps, Mr. Speaker, who was so well qualified by previous experience, might have names referred to him and that would be considered as a reference to names. It is mentioned in the Law Commission Report as they considered solicitors not trained in the art of marriage conciliation.
Once a divorce case has come to court, it is not very practical to think that there is a reasonable possibility of the parties coming together again. That is why it is a rather cat and mouse concept in the

Bill to provide that the case must be adjourned until the court can be reasonably satisfied. I agree also with those who have said that this would tend to be one law for the rich and another for the poor.
We are not steam-rollering the Bill through, and there is the chance to reconsider many points in Committee. I should like to see it established that a single act of adultery should not constitute a breakdown of marriage, because this is humiliating; it leads to spying, and it is an artificial way of obtaining a divorce.
Women are not worried so much about themselves as about the maintenance of their children. The hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) is introducing a Bill to deal with matrimonial property. I only wish that that Bill had been enacted before this Bill came forward. However, I wish the hon. Member's Bill well and I hope that it will be accepted by the House, because it will make a great difference to the outcome of this Bill.
I have one proposal to make about financial security which I do not think requires legal action. A deserted woman, particularly one in the lower income group, must immediately go to social security for help. If she is divorced, action is taken to secure a decision as to what provision shall be made for herself and her children. At present, social security is paying out between £27 million and £40 million in help to such women and children. This is because the Maintenance Orders Act is not working as it should. Those who desert their wives have discovered too many loopholes in this Act.
I therefore suggest—I think that this would go a long way towards saving the £400,000 which has been mentioned—that immediately a wife is deserted, before any action is taken in court, the social security should assess the amount her husband should pay. A letter could then go to the husband telling him of the amount he must pay and, if he protests, he could take the matter to court. If the wife does not think that she is getting adequate payment, she can go to court. This would give much more security to women, in the early stages, knowing she would get some financial support. It would result in a saving of the time of the court, because


many cases would not be defended, and it would result in a saving in legal costs. It would require merely an instruction to the social security people.

Mr. Peter Mahon: Does not the hon. Lady agree that the difficulty that would arise from the additional court cases to which she has referred would inject into the operation of the Bill the very bitterness which the sponsor of the Bill is anxious to eradicate?

Dame Joan Vickers: The hon. Gentleman has got the wrong end of the stick. I was suggesting that in many cases there would be no necessity to go to court if an assessment was made by the social security and if there was no intention to seek a divorce. Many court cases would be eliminated.

Mr. Charles Doughty: Even if the husband did not oppose such an assessment, who would enforce the order? These orders, whether made by a court or by anybody else, are unenforceable.

Dame Joan Vickers: I suggest this as a preliminary method to secure the finances of wives and children, and I agree it cannot be enforced unless they go to court. As my hon. and learned Friend says, these orders are not enforceable, because loopholes have been found in the Maintenance Orders Act.

Mr. Doughty: It is not a question of there being loopholes in that Act. It is a question of there being loopholes in the family budget. No man is readily able to accept the financial burden of keeping two homes going.

Dame Joan Vickers: That is true, but that is known at present. No one in the lower income group who is divorced can keep two homes going satisfactorily. Therefore, wives have to go to social security. However, many men who could well contribute something have found loopholes in the Maintenance Orders Act. The Act provides that a man must miss four weeks before his earnings can be attached. So a man pays in the third week and can therefore get away with paying 12 times a year. The same applies to those who pay at two-monthly intervals: they can get away with it if they wish to. Just as driving licences are

endorsed, so National Insurance cards should be endorsed with the amount of money men have to pay, so that automatically their employers would be able to deduct the right amount.
"Putting Asunder" says on page 148:
'thousands of illegitimate children are living an apparently normal family life with both their natural parents although the law recognises no legal relationship between them and their fathers'. Being deprived of the natural relationship to one parent or the other can have a far more devastating effect upon a child than the social and legal disabilities of illegitimacy itself. … Consequently it can only be misleading to concentrate attention on the denial of divorce in such circumstances, as if that were the root of the problem.
Then there is the question of remarriage. Large numbers of divorced women remarry. In 1965, 23,600 divorced women, or 64 per cent. of the number divorced in that year, remarried, and 24,300 men, or 66 per cent. of the number divorced in that year remarried. Of 12,200,000 married couples in England and Wales in 1965, only 0·3 per cent. were divorced.
In Australia, which has similar legislation to that which we are now considering, the number of divorces increased by only 1,142 from 1959 to 1965, although between those dates the population had greatly increased. Australia's divorce laws, on which we have based much of this Bill, prove that there is no resulting great increase in divorce. Since 1920 New Zealand has had divorce by consent after three years' separation. I do not think it can be said that New Zealand has a more permissive way of life than we do. Even if one party objects, seven years' separation in New Zealand and five years' separation in Australia constitutes ground for divorce. These facts should help us to appreciate that the enactment of the Bill will not make our society more expensive than it is at present.
I hope that the Bill will go to a Standing Committee. It was a great pity that because of circumstances, the last Bill did not have a Report stage when hon. Members outside the Standing Committee could have expressed their views without reiterating today so many of the views which were discussed in Committee. As one of the sponsors of the Bill, I assure those who are against it that there is no intention to steamroller. One Amendment was accepted


last time, and since then we have had further time to look at the Bill and we have had further consultations and listened to other views.
There has been plenty of time for people to make protests, but I have had no more protests since those which I received to the original Bill. In Committee, we can discuss the matter in the light of what has been said today to see whether further improvements can be made. I hope that the House will consider that the Bill is worth taking further, because I am certain that it will create more happiness for many people than do the present conditions and that it will enable them to lead more honest lives than they may now do when separated.

Mr. Simon Mahon: The hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) told the House she believed that the Bill would bring more happiness, and I suppose that she meant into the lives of families and homes and marriages. I believe the Bill to be full of tears. Any extension of our divorce laws along the lines proposed would undermine family life and marriages more than anything that we have done before.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General is a very old friend and it is a pity that I have to address my remarks to him, but perhaps I may address them first to the sponsor of the Bill, who is a member of the party to which I belong. I ask him whether the people of Wales are crying out for a Bill like this. Is this the biggest difficulty which the people of Wales have to face?
I remember the days when the people of Wales, like my own people, were talking about the social conditions in which we had to live and against which we had to fight—the bad housing, bad industrial conditions, the poverty, the degradation and deprivation of dignity in family life. It was the people of Wales to whom I first listened when I was a boy and espoused the cause which I am still trying hard to follow. I believe that the people of Wales are not demanding the Bill. I believe that they want measures of the kind I have mentioned, Bills dealing with the problems

I have mentioned, problems which have not been eradicated on Merseyside, nor in the valleys of Wales.

Mr. Alec Jones: I can assure my hon. Friend that the people of Wales are as determined to solve the social problems which confront us today as the people of Merseyside, but, at the same time, they are compassionate in their consideration of those whom the present divorce laws are making unhappy.

Mr. Mahon: One of the greatest Welshmen I ever heard in the House, the then right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale—and I was a supporter of his from the moment I came into the House, much to the chagrin and annoyance of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, some of whom sit on the Government Front Bench, always said that Socialism was the law of priorities. That is the point; this Bill is not a priority. The people are not clamouring for the Bill.
My right hon. and learned Friend said that the Government had adopted some sort of line of neutrality. I interrupted him to ask why the Government had not had the courage to introduce the Bill themselves if it had the social importance which they said it had. I have been filled with sadness by some of the attitudes of the Labour Government. I have reported it to the highest authorities in the Labour Government. They are doing things which they should not be doing and they have done things which they should not have done. They have introduced social legislation which is no part of Labour philosophy.
If the Government are adopting a position of neutrality, how is it that they have spent so much time looking into the provisions which will have to be made if the Bill becomes law? Surely they have prejudged the issue. I am putting myself right if the Government will not put themselves right and I am saying that this is a Government-sponsored Bill just as the Abortion Bill was a Government-sponsored Bill. That is what I believe and I have not gone behind the eight-ball in this matter. I am just as much part of the scene of this party as was my father before me. We did not make a Labour Party to see this sort of legislation brought forward: we have other priorities.
All my life I have been opposed to hon. Members opposite, but I did not expect this sort of thing from the Labour Party and I want it to be known that I do not expect it. I have the idea that there are some influences at work and I shall try to enumerate them. Who is it who is so powerful that he can ignore the traditional postures of the Labour Party and bring pressure to bear on the Government even to make time available and even to make plans? Was it the Liaison Committee? Was it the Divorce Reform Association? Was it the Humanist Society? Does anybody want to tell me who it was who put pressure on the Government, or did the Cabinet need no pressure? Did the Government want to do these things themselves? Do the Government themselves want the permissive society?
These are all perfectly valid questions and, after a lifetime in this movement, I am perturbed that we have come to such a sorry pass that I find myself in this position of having left school at 14 years of age, joining a trade union—the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) smiles; if he had been in the same environment as I was, he would still be there: I am here.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that there are many Members on the Labour benches who feel very strongly that they are in the Labour Party partly because we want to see progressive and humane social change. While I accept that his objection to this kind of Measure is based—and let us be blunt—on religious views, which I do not share, and while I can well accept his sincerity, he should accept the sincerity of those who support this tradition of progressive and humane reforms which must be part of our continuing philosophy.

Mr. Mahon: It is the hon. Gentleman who is wrong. He is making assumptions. Thank God I have a faith, as many hon. Members have a faith, but I did not mention it. I did not say that I objected to the Bill, because I was of the Catholic faith. Of course, I am a Catholic, but my reason, apart from my faith, tells me that this is a bad Bill. My hon. Friend has made the sort of intellectual assumption which is always wrong. I

am glad that I gave way to him. I hope that people will take this seriously. There are many thousands like me who look at this very gravely. We will certainly make adjudications, when the right time comes, as to who is responsible.

Sir C. Osborne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Solicitor-General has confessed that the Government have assumed that the Bill will become law? It therefore becomes part of Government policy. The Government are making financial provisions for unwanted spouses. A question that I would like him to put is: supposing the Chancellor says that he will not find the extra money, where will it come from?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman should not put words of that kind into my mouth, which I did not utter. It is surely perfectly proper and sensible for the Government to make preparations in their consideration of the White Paper on Social Insurance, and to take into account the possibility that this Bill may become law. Our attitude on this is perfectly fair.

Mr. Mahon: I will not enter into that argument, except to say that my right hon. and learned Friend said that we should get this into the proper perspective. I was thinking about trying to get the wages of an ordinary working man into proper perspective with this sort of social upheaval. What possible chance would there have been for me, one of a family of 11? Where would we have been if the provisions of the Bill had operated in such circumstances? Who do I belong to under those circumstances?
I want to tell the Government that I do not belong to the State. I will support the State in all that is reasonable, but I belong to a family and I am an individual. The State is not "supra" to the family, to the husband, the wife or child. Some hon. Members would have us believe that it is, but it is not, because the State cannot recreate us. I make my stand perfectly clear, in case the party I belong to is going permissive, in case they have taken decisions which will bring this country to a permissive state. I want to be no part of it.
We have had a spate of these Bills. If this Bill goes through, what will be the next activity? We are perfectly


entitled, when Parliamentary time is being used, to ask this. Will voluntary schools be next or will it be euthanasia? These decisions are being taken outside this House. We are told that there is great pressure in Parliament for these things. Lots of seminars are taking place in all sorts of societies all over the country.
I want to know what the Government intend. What is their next ambition? Is it to destroy religion in voluntary schools, or to take religion out of all schools in the country? These are the things which are coming to our ears. There is no doubt about it, maybe people do not like me saying so. These are the vital questions people are asking, as they have every right to ask a Member of Parliament, and as we certainly have every right to ask the Government Front Bench.
I knew when I stood up that the cynics and the sceptics, and those who feel that a man who thinks that marriage is a sacrament is outmoded, would be against me. I like to think that words like "love, honour and obey" still find some echo in the hearts and minds of the people. I like to feel that this country was great, is great and will be great because of this devotion to the basic family life.
We are talking about economic difficulties, but it will not be economic difficulties which will undermine this country. We can get over these, we always have done and always will. Our people work hard and they have ingenuity, initiative and ability. The Bill is the sort of thing that will undermine the country. This is what will put us at the bottom of the league table of nations. I believe that with all my heart and soul, otherwise I would not say so.
In my very long history in the House I have been patient. I have had to be. If I was not patient within myself, sickness made me so. I do not want to say the things that I have to say to the House, and I certainly do not want to say these things to my party, but I hope that they will take note that these are the things which the people are saying. The people are afraid that their marriages will be undermined by legislation. We should try to make marriage easier. We know of the great problems, seeing the boy and the girl coming to us, trying to get their marriage working, against all

the difficulties and vicissitudes of bad social conditions.
These are the things at which we should be looking, the bad housing, the casual system of labour. These are undermining marriages and these are the things at which, particularly a Labour Government should be looking. There was a time when the difficulties of our people, particularly the working class to whom I very much belong, were automatically reflected in a Labour Government's legislation; when we could look with assurance at the Labour Government and say, "There is where our heart lies." People may have to look again to see where the dignity of the home, the dignity of their marriage and the future of their country lies. They will have to do these things.
I could say much more about the Bill. None of its Clauses will make things any better. I am sure that they will make things considerably worse. They will undermine the basis of this nation, upon which we have so long relied. Before the House comes to a decision it should be extremely careful.

11.50 a.m.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: I hope that the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his various arguments. I know that everyone who has heard him would like to pay tribute to the sincerity of his speech. He obviously feels very deeply about the issues concerned. I do not agree with him that this is a Government-sponsored Bill. It is not. I agree very much with my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) when he said that there is a need for more Government responsibility in such matters.
Our Parliamentary system is at fault with great social problems such as the divorce law. It seems intolerable that these reforms depend so much on the luck and accidents of Private Members' Bills. This is an overdue reform, and such reforms can be held up for years while successive Private Members' Bills are obstructed year after year. I hope that this one will succeed.
For several years, I have been an enthusiastic supporter of divorce law reform, and I am very pleased to be a sponsor of this Bill. My reasons for wanting to see a change in the law are twofold. First, I believe—and I think


that most hon. Members agree with this—that the present divorce laws contain a great deal of hypocrisy and cause unnecessary bitterness and unhappiness between the parties. Secondly, it is deeply distressing that about 200,000 children have been born in this country as illegitimate, and they will never be made legitimate unless this change is made in the law.
I realise that the proposed changes may cause hardship in some cases. But this hardship must surely be balanced against the very great hardship felt by illegitimate children and their parents. I am clear in my mind where the greater hardship lies.
There is some opposition to the Bill, and it is right that those who believe in reform should be prepared to meet this opposition with reasonable arguments on the merits of the case. The case against the Bill was forcefully argued by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell), who said, in his closing words on Friday, 6th December:
This is a disgraceful Bill, and I shall fight it at every stage".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1968; Vol. 774, c. 2050.]
I am sorry that I was not present to hear my hon. and learned Friend speak, but I have read his speech carefully and I should like to reply to it point by point.
My hon. and learned Friend started by saying that people who wanted to see a change made in the law were in a small minority. He said:
Members are also apt to forget that those vocal people who continually clamour for an alteration in the divorce law which will enable them to get a divorce are a very small minority and are all people for whom the present divorce laws provide no relief. It follows that by and large, with their very few exceptions, they are guilty men and women who have left wives or husbands and gone to live with somebody else.
That is a very narrow view. It ignores the fact that many distinguished lawyers and leaders of the Church also want to see a major reform made in the divorce law. It ignores the Church's report, "Putting Asunder". It ignores the report of the Law Commissioners. The people who helped to write those reports are not guilty people. They are sensible, humane people who realise that the present divorce laws are neither fair nor just. I have had several meetings in my

constituency with the clergy in my area about the Bill. I find almost universal support for the ideas in the Bill. Practically all the clergymen agreed that the concept of the matrimonial offence was out of date.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oldham, West went on to say that there had been a vast increase in divorce in the last 20 or 25 years. He said—and I particularly noticed these words—
If the Bill is passed, it will give another surge forward to the steady disintegration of family life that has been going on in this country for the past 20 or 25 years. The time must surely soon so come, if it has not come already, when we must ask ourselves whether the institution of marriage is worth bothering about any more."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1968; Vol. 744. c. 2043–4.]
I regard that as a cynical view and a great exaggeration. The divorce rate has increased, but so has the marriage rate.

Mr. Bruce Campbell: Does my hon. Friend suggest that the marriage rate has increased by 1,800 per cent. which is the increase in divorce?

Mr. Awdry: Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will be patient and will let me develop my argument. One must keep the facts in perspective. There are more marriages because people marry younger and live longer. One of the reasons for an increase in the number of divorce petitions was the coming into force of legal aid to enable people to file divorce petitions who would not have been able to afford to do so before.
To suggest that marriage as an institution is disintegrating is a travesty of the truth. Let us consider the number of divorces per 1,000 married women between the ages of 20 and 49. The average number of petitions filed annually from 1950 to 1954 was 4·42 per 1,000 married women. In 1959, it was 3·52, and in 1965 it was 5·77.

Sir C. Osborne: From where do the divorces come to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell) referred?

Mr. Awdry: I ask my hon. Friend to accept that these facts are correct. In spite of all the prejudice which has been whipped up, fewer than six married women between the ages I have quoted in every 1,000 get involved in divorce petitions each year. It is important to


keep our feet on the ground. This is not a high figure. It is not helpful to throw doubt on the institution of marriage.

Mr. Peter Mahon: The hon. Gentleman said that his figures are authentic and that we must not get excited about this matter. Would he agree that, if we must remain placid and patient, there is no room for the Bill?

Mr. Bruce Campbell: rose —

Mr. Awdry: I must answer the point of the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon). It is not helpful in a debate of this kind to throw doubt on the institution of marriage. We must keep the matter in perspective.
I am, of course, concerned that one marriage in 13 ends in divorce. However, I believe that the Bill will not weaken the institution of marriage but strengthen it. That is why I support it. I am a happily married man, and, like the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon), I believe in honour and love.

Mr. Bruce Campbell: May I take up my hon. Friend's figure of six divorces among 1,000 married women? If he remembers that a married life will perhaps last for 20 years, his figures mean 150 in every 1,000 married women.

Mr. Awdry: I will press on, because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.
I turn to the point which has given rise to most discussion today. I come to the Clause dealing with the five-year period of separation, which, I admit, is the most controversial part of the Bill. This is the last time that I will quote my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oldham, West. He said:
When he"—
that is, a husband—
grows tired of his wife, and she ceases to be sexually attractive to him, he will be allowed to desert his wife and children, go off with a younger woman and, after five years, to force his completely innocent wife into a divorce so that he can marry the new woman.
Then my hon. and learned Friend for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) intervened to say:
Then 5,0 off with another one."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th Dec. 1968; Vol. 774, c. 2045.]

Mr. Doughty: After five years.

Mr. Awdry: This is an unfair attack on the Bill, and I will explain why.
It is not right or fair to suggest that the Bill allows anyone to desert anyone else. Whether we pass the Bill or not, regrettably many marriages will break down. People fall out of love, and no law which we pass will prevent it. Surely no one will suggest that a marriage is a live marriage when the parties have been separated for fully five years. Surely everyone must agree that then the marriage has broken down. But under the Bill the court is not bound to dissolve that marriage.
There are two safeguards, and, although they have been referred to, it is right to refer to them again. First, under Clause 4, the court may refuse a decree altogether if the divorce would result in grave financial or other hardship. It does not deal purely with financial hardship. In certain cases, when the court has considered the conduct of the parties and the situation of the wife, there is an overriding power to refuse a decree on grounds other than financial hardship.
Secondly, under Clause 6, the court will not grant a decree unless the financial provision made by the petitioner for the respondent is reasonable or the best which can be arranged in the circumstances. This is a very wide power indeed, far wider than any existing power. It would enable a court to withhold a decree unless a very large proportion of the husband's capital was transferred to the wife. I can envisage cases in which the court would refuse a decree unless the husband was literally stripped of all his capital.
Finally, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oldham, West dealt with illegitimacy. He said that the proper way to deal with it was to alter the law relating to illegitimacy and not the law of divorce. I do not understand how anyone could propose this. Illegitimacy still causes very deep distress to the people concerned, and the only way to solve the problem is to allow the parents to marry.
I have spoken long enough. I realise that I have incurred a certain amount of wrath and opposition from these benches.
I would like to sum up my reasons for supporting the Bill. I believe that it is humane, fair and realistic. As I have said, I do not think that it will weaken marriage. I believe that it will strengthen it. It will encourage reconciliation and it will prevent the isolated act of adultery being a ground for divorce on its own. I am sure that that is right.
The Bill will give the court useful powers to adjourn cases for long periods. It will strengthen the power of the court to award proper maintenance and deal with the problem of pensions.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Where?

Mr. Awdry: If my hon. Friend reads the Bill, he will see that Clause 6 deals with the position of pensions.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: My hon. Friend must know that whatever is written into a Divorce Bill, it cannot deal with pensions. Only the Government can deal with pensions. The Government are themselves in a difficulty in dealing with pensions, because many are private pensions in which the Government are not concerned.

Mr. Awdry: That is not a fair statement of the position. There is power in the Bill to deal with pensions. In the case of private pensions, the court can prevent a divorce being granted unless the pension is assigned to the wife or funds are set aside to provide a proper income or deferred annuity for the wife. The Solicitor-General has today given us a most useful assurance to show that the Government are thinking about the whole question of social security as it affects divorced people.
This Bill removes the sham and hypocrisy from the law and a great deal of bitterness from the unhappy people who, often through no fault of their own, are involved in breakdown of marriage.

12.2 p.m.

Dr. Hugh Gray: Like the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry), I support the Bill. I would like briefly to say why I think that it is an interim Measure and that it certainly does not go far enough.
The hon. Member said that the Bill would remove hypocrisy. Unfortunately,

it only partially does this. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General indicated that he had moved in his thinking from his consideration that the matrimonial offence should be retained in law to the situation that he thought that the principle of breakdown of marriage was good but that guidelines should be maintained. When we look at those guidelines, we see how hypocrisy will still remain. For example, under ground (c), Clause 2 (1) states:
that the respondent has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition".
Many people, as we know and as was admitted by opponents of the Bill, agree to divorce. There is a consensual situation. They decide to separate and to set up separate households. Under the Bill, however, they have still to agree that one person is guilty and another is innocent. Surely there should be room for a joint petition, as, I am told, is the situation in Switzerland. It is certainly not a permissive society in the Canton of Berne. The Bill is chiefly to be welcomed because it takes the immense step forward of allowing people to obtain a divorce against the consent of their partners after an extremely long period—namely, five years—has passed.
The sponsors of the Bill have missed a great opportunity. One can rally behind reform only a certain political and social dynamic. I regret very much that the Bill is such an interim Measure and that in 10 to 20 years' time somebody else will have to come before the House and introduce a new one.

Sir C. Osborne: To do what?

Dr. Gray: To introduce further reforms of divorce. I will say a little later what I would do.
I consider the Bill to be transitional because it meets a transitional situation in our society. Women have not yet got equal pay for equal work. They have not yet achieved complete economic independence with men. Alterations have not yet been made in the law to ensure, for example, that property acquired during marriage is equally divided between the two. We see, however, the drive in history. We see that women will become as independent as men are today and one sees that they must be treated in


the matrimonial situation as complete equals.
If I were bringing forward a Divorce Bill, I would rely on two situations only, namely, simple breakdown and complex breakdown. It seems to me that when two rational adults have decided to separate, when they recognise that their marriage has irretrievably broken down, if there are no children there is only the question of property settlement. Indeed, I look forward to the time when divorces will be dealt with not by the courts, but by the registrar of births, deaths and marriages in cases in which agreement is reached on the division of property between two partners and there are no children. I would say that there was a situation of complex breakdown when there was disagreement over property division and when there were children and, therefore, that the community must come into the picture to ensure that the most equable arrangement possible was reached.
I am extremely pleased that although during the Committee stage of the last Bill my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General strongly opposed my Amendment—the only Amendment which was accepted by the Committee—he has now changed his thinking on it. He has indicated similarly that he has changed his thinking on the doctrine of the matrimonial offence. I hope that he will look at the Bill again and will accept further Amendments moved in Committee.
There is no getting away from the fact that Clause 4 is a rich man's charter. In my contention, the court should achieve the best and most reasonable settlement possible in the material circumstances of the people involved. I hope, therefore, that we shall get rid of this Clause in Committee, just as we got rid of a similar Clause in the last Bill.
I cannot understand why moderate and reasonable people should oppose such a moderate Bill. It is, as I have argued, only a transitional Measure. I expect the Bill to receive overwhelming support, but do not let us think that it is definitive. It goes only a short way in what I and many other people who live in our society consider to be a desirable direction.

12.8 p.m.

Mr. Ian Percival: The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Dr. Gray) said that he could not understand how moderate and reasonable people could be opposed to the Bill. I hope that I may persuade him with both moderation and reason that that is possible.
First, I would like to make it clear for this side of the House that the Solicitor-General was quite right in saying that there is no party issue or party line on the Bill. While I have the honour to speak from the Dispatch Box, I must make it clear that the views which I express are my personal views and my views alone. It seemed to me, however, that the Solicitor-General was placed in a less happy position than I am and that he was walking something of a tightrope. He will know that I say that without any intention to be critical. I think that he is placed in a very difficult situation.
It is worth taking a moment on the points made by the hon. and learned Gentleman about the alleged giving of time. Sooner or later, this House will have to face the question of whether private Members' business is to remain private Members' business. I have not been here as long as many others have, but I have always understood that private Members' time was private Members' time, that the rules were such that minorities were protected, and that both the Government and the official Opposition kept out of it. If we are to change that practice, that is a matter which the Leader of the House might consider for debate in the House, so that we have a Resolution, and know where we stand.
It is something of a misuse of words to say that the Government have made time available. I do not think that that is what has happened at all. What has happened is that, with the assistance of the Government's authority, a procedural device has been used to continue the Second Reading debate on a Tuesday morning. If the Government had considered this to be important, and had said that it was so important that they would give private Members some of their time in the afternoon, or evening, at a reasonable hour, so that the matter could be discussed, that would be different.
I do not think that we should conceal from ourselves what has happened. Experience has shown that mornings are not convenient for the assembly of a full House. What has happened is not that time has been made available, but a procedure has been used, with the assistance of the Government Whips, to ensure that the debate continues at what is known to be a very inconvenient time.

Sir C. Osborne: Surely the Government have made a choice of priorities, even within my hon. and learned Friend's narrow definition of private Members' time, in that they have chosen to use the machinery to enable a debate to take place on this Bill, and not on other Bills which some of us feel have an equal priority? The Government are, therefore, making a choice, and the Bill therefore becomes a Government Bill.

Mr. Percival: The Government are using the procedure to advance the progress of the Bill, without giving any time in the sense in which I understand that word.
Can the Government really claim to be neutral in this matter any longer? The reason given for breaching what I always understood to be the rule about private Members' time is that this is a matter of great social importance, and the Government have always claimed—and I do not deny that they mean it—that they are interested in social matters.
We have heard that the Bill raises financial considerations to the tune of £400,000 in connection with the Legal Aid scheme. What is more, we have learned for the first time this morning—and I think that this is something which the House should consider—that the Government have got so far as considering the changes which they would make in the insurance schemes if the Bill went through. I ask the Government to reconsider their position. Having regard to those three considerations, can they really say that they are, or can any longer remain neutral? Has not the position been reached when they should take over responsibility for the Bill?
None of this is aimed personally at the Solicitor-General. I accept that most of these matters are outside his province. Matters affecting other Government Departments are under consideration, and unless and until the Bill is taken over

by the Government neither the House nor the Committee will have the assistance of the Ministers who could help us on these important matters. I therefore ask the Government to consider whether the hon. Gentleman opposite was not right when he said that if these matters were under consideration, would not it be advisable to defer consideration of the Bill for a little while so that the House may be informed of the Government's thinking on these related matters before it comes to a decision?
I appreciate that there are those who want to come to a speedy decision on this matter. No doubt the Government do. No doubt those who have made up their minds definitely, and for some time since, are among those who do, but I hope it will be appreciated that there are hon. Members, and perhaps more widely, many in the country who feel deep concern about the Bill.
The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Dr. Gray) said that the Bill did not go nearly far enough, and I think that that raises an important issue. The House should endeavour to lead thinking on issues like this, but the one thing that it should not try to do is to ram its thoughts down the throats of the people. The House must lead thought by persuading people that such-and-such is a good change. Only when that is done is the House entitled to make that change. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman when he says that the Bill does not go nearly far enough. I believe that it is out of tune with the thinking of probably the majority of people.

Dr. Gray: Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that this is entirely a matter of opinion? Against his view I argue that the majority of people would like a Bill which goes further. These are questions of judgment, not of evidence.

Mr. Percival: I take the opposite view. I do not think that these are questions of judgment, but of evidence. We can only go on the people we meet. If the hon. Gentleman really thinks that the majority of people think as he does, I recommend him to visit Lancashire, where some hon. Gentlemen opposite will, I am sure, join me in introducing him to a representative collection of people who take a contrary view.
I agree that this is not a sweeping measure of reform, even assuming for the moment that it is a reform, but there are many points which will have to be examined in detail in Committee if the Bill gets a Second Reading, and I want to try to steer clear of those. I think that one of the things which is probably a Committee point is the reduction of a period for desertion to two years.
The three main things which the Bill does, the three things which really introduce differences of substance, are these: first, it introduces the concept of divorce by consent in paragraph (d); secondly, it introduces the concept of unilateral divorce against the will of an innocent party, in paragraph (e); thirdly, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) said, it introduces complications in the law of divorce to a very substantial degree. What we have to consider is whether the first of those two, which some people think will confer benefits, will, in fact, do so, and are worth the third.
I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Brace Campbell), that though the concept of divorce by consent is a new one we have reached the stage at which we ought at least to try it. That is of itself a substantial change. With many others who for many years have regarded consensual divorce as being wholly wrong, I am prepared to go as far with the promoters of the Bill as saying that dishonesties have crept in under the present practice, and that these can be remedied only by a change of this kind. I am not opposed to that. I think that at least it should be tried.
I am sceptical about the two-year period, especially when one looks at Clause 3 (3) and (5) and finds that even during that two years the parties may spend one year together. This applies also in desertion. But perhaps that is a Committee point.
On the second major change—the five-year unilateral divorce—I express the view which I expressed before: that the question of legitimacy is a red herring. Whether in law a person is legitimate or illegitimate could easily be dealt with by the House in a simple Measure. I do not believe that the legal situation presents any difficulty, remembering that

social views on legitimacy are involved. If people are enabled to marry after they have had children, in the eyes of many of their neighbours who know that a child was conceived out of wedlock or born before the marriage, that is a social stigma. That view must be eradicated if we are to improve the lot of the illegitimate. A Bill of this kind cannot touch the problem.
We agree that the Bill represents a substantial departure in principle. Lawyers are usually those who recommend departures in principle, so that my objection to this provision does not rest on the ground that I am a lawyer who does not like to see principles changed. I like to see them change only when there is a good case for doing so.
The second part of that observation—that there should be a good case for changing a principle—is the important one. I doubt whether the supporters of the Bill have measured the benefits that they believe will result from this departure from principle with the disadvantages. We are all aware of cases of people living together but unable to marry because one or other is already married and who would be happier if they were able to marry.
But I wonder whether anybody can say with precision just how many such people there are. To some of them, the Bill may bring happiness, but let us not forget that for every couple who receive some happiness by this means there will be at least one other person to whom distress will be caused. Let us not believe that every husband or wife who hangs on to his or her partner in marriage is doing so from sheer spite. Many do so because of conscience, religion or another reason which seems perfectly good to them and which we, from the outside, should be slow to castigate as spite.
In the Second Reading debate on the previous Bill, on 9th February, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) said that, on balance, the Bill would resolve more hardships than it would create. I agree with his remark about there being a balance. We must accept that there will be some hardship caused by what we are doing to relieve people of hardship. I am not so sure about his comment that it will resolve more hardships than it will create. I


do not know how one can assess this, even by counting heads. Can it be said that the additional happiness that will be brought to a couple who may have been living together for many years, without being able to marry, will outweigh the great distress that will be caused to the one person who has been divorced and who, in his or her heart, wishes to remain married for life?

Mr. Dewar: Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the main distress to the so-called innocent party—say, the wife—took place when she was deserted and had to go through the social stigma of telling her friends that her hushand had left for another woman, and not at the time of the legal formalities when the divorce took place?

Mr. Percival: I do not believe that it is as simple as that. There are many men and women to whom the institution of marriage is so sacred that anything is less of a hardship than being party to a divorce. Nothing can cause more distress to such people than to have their marriages terminated. In some cases it may be as simple as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but in view of the deep human feelings which we are trying to consider, I doubt whether it is the right of any man to cast judgment on where the balance will lie. One must accept that at the very time when one is bringing happiness to one person or one couple, one is necessarily bringing distress to others.
It is important to get the matter in perspective by reminding ourselves of how far the Measure will be of help. A wife who is living with another man will be able to take advantage of these provisions because there will be no question of financial provision having to be made and she will then be in a position to marry the man with whom she wishes to live, and that is right. But I doubt whether it will be nearly as easy for the husband because if the alleged financial safeguards in the Bill mean anything, he must show that he can support two households. If the provision concluded with the words "… provided, if the petitioner is a husband, that he can satisfy the court that he can maintain two households," then everybody would think twice about the matter. However,

that is the effect of adding together the different parts of the Bill; that is, if the financial safeguards mean anything.
I have shown that we start with the proposition that an entirely new principle is being introduced. I agree that the effect of it will be very limited. That being so, will the result of that be worth the price we must pay for it? I have concluded that it will not, and I say that for two main reasons.
The first is because it seems that it must make inroads into the concept of the sanctity of marriage. I am sufficiently old-fashioned to think that that still matters, although I cannot define the concept or say why it matters. I believe that there are in this life some things that we cannot understand or put into words, although we believe just as sincerely that they matter. I believe that the aura of mystery—the mystical union of two people for life—is something which contributes to the stability of marriage and contributes enormously to the happiness of marriage.
I therefore cannot resist the conclusion that anything that makes inroads into the institution of marriage will lessen the stability and happiness of marriage. I am sorry that some hon. Members have spoken of this concept as "humbug" and "hypocrisy". I appreciate that many people who are legally married do not share my view and have no respect for the institution of marriage. But there is little that we in this House can do to put that right. However, we should certainly not do anything which might tend to show that we, too, may not have as much respect for the institution of marriage as we had.
I accept that these are matters of personal opinion, but if we are to introduce the principle of a five-year compulsory divorce against the wishes of a totally innocent party, then we will be interpretated as saying, "We do not think that marriage is entitled to as much respect as it used to enjoy." That must be detrimental, and I am deliberately couching my remarks in moderate terms. I do not think that anyone is entitled to do anything but express his views in moderate terms on such a subject. Secondly, the price we pay for this is the fearful complications that the Bill introduces, all of which are really introduced to provide


some sort of answer to arguments on the five-year term that would otherwise be irresistible.
Perhaps I have been moralising to some extent but, on occasion, one must. One is a little diffident about doing so as a rule, but on occasions like this one has to put that diffidence on one side and express a personal view. I turn to the rest of my observations rather as a lawyer with some practical experience of the Divorce Division, but more especially as one who has taken the opportunity to discuss the Bill with a wide range of those in practice at the Divorce Bar. I want to remove some of the misconceptions that, as a lawyer, I believe are present in people's minds and are influencing them on the Bill.
One of the most important things that the House has to bear in mind all the time is that we must, for goodness' sake, be sure that we know what the Bill does. There are at least four reasons why I think that some of the views expressed in this debate indicate that those concerned are not quite clear about the effect of what is proposed. I do not challenge that they know what they want to do: what I am not so happy about is whether they are clear about what the Bill would do.
This emerges in four respects. First, there have been those who have said that by the Bill we are substituting something else for the concept of the matrimonial offence. I hope that no hon. Member will be under that misapprehension. It is only a matter of words—the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) shakes his head, but it will not take me a moment to show that that is the case. The principal words of the principal Clause refer to irretrievable breakdown, but there is no onus on the petitioner to prove irretrievable breakdown. In fact, the onus rests the other way: a court has to grant a decree if any one of the specific grounds is made out unless it is established that there has not been irretrievable breakdown. The first three items that then follow under alleged irretrievable breakdown are the three we have known for so long as the principal matrimonial offences, and no amount of wrapping up in words can conceivably disguise that fact.
Secondly, there are those who welcome the Bill because they think that it makes divorce easier all round—

Mr. Weitzman: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that the Bill sets out the old grounds in exactly the same way. If he looks at Clause 2 (1) (a) he will see that two things have to be established: that adultery has been committed and that the petitioner finds it intolerable to live with the respondent. Today, a divorce can be obtained by proving just one act of adultery. How, then, can the hon. and learned Gentleman say that his proposition is correct?

Mr. Percival: With respect, I think that that is a debating point. In the interests of brevity I was drawing attention to the fact that the first three grounds are the three old matrimonial offences we have known for a long time—

Mr. Weitzman: Mr. Weitzman indicated dissent.

Mr. Percival: Yes, with some frills on them. What happens here is that, in addition to proving the adultery, the petitioner must show that he finds it intolerable to live with the respondent. But, first of all, he has to prove the adultery.

Mr. James Dunn: Could we not be sure that it would be almost impossible in law to prove that it was intolerable to live with somebody, or not to live with someone?

Mr. Percival: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Turning to the complications of the Measure, Clause 3 (3) deals with what is and what is not to be taken into account in considering whether it is intolerable for the petitioner to live with the respondent. Here, the difficulties further appear. Under Clause 2 (1) (a), one has first to prove adultery. That is the matrimonial offence which has been the ground for divorce for as long as we have had divorce, and it does not matter how much we wrap it up. Subsection (1) (b) means cruelty, perhaps widened, and put in broader terms than now exist. Nevertheless it connotes the concept of the matrimonial offence. Paragraph (c) is simply desertion with the period shortened.
The second misconception that I believe is in some people's minds is that the Bill will make it easier in all respects to get a divorce. As this point has been averted to by a number of speakers I can deal with it very briefly. I believe that


the mistake to be that the Bill makes it easier in cases where there is little ground for saying that it should be easier, and more difficult and complicated in some other cases where there might be something to be said for simplifying the matter.
As was pointed out both by the hon. and learned Solicitor-General, and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) during the previous Second Reading debate, and has been referred to in this debate, the Bill will make it more difficult for a man of limited means to get a divorce in any circumstances. It introduces, as I hope the House appreciates, a new and very general discretion to refuse a decree. There is no longer, by the Bill, any right for anyone to have a decree in any circumstances. That is the effect of Clause 4, which introduces an entirely new concept. It puts everything in issue. It introduces immense scope for blackmail of the rich—I can just see an unscrupulous person saying to the other side, "I will put everything in issue under Clause 4—what will you pay?"—and makes life very difficult for those of limited means.
In the case of adultery, an extra requirement is introduced which, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) has just said, brings in a concept which is not easy to translate into practical terms. The ground of cruelty is made wider still. I will not go through the provisions—some make it easy and some make it more difficult—but, overall, Clause 4 introduces a new concept which is the price that has to be paid for the new five-year ground against the will of the other party. I hope that the House will ask itself very carefully whether that is a price worth paying.
Next, I must refer to the question of adequate financial safeguards. It may be that we in the House are now perfectly clear about the value of those safeguards, but I am not at all sure whether or not all those outside the House who are interested are clear about it. My view is that the promoters of the Bill must face up fairly and squarely to the one simple fact that as long as the words
… or the best that can be made in the circumstances 

are in Clause 6, that Clause is utterly useless as any form of safeguard for the financial position of the respondent.
All the Clause says is that the court shall not make absolute the decree of divorce unless it is satisfied—and in most cases coming before the courts there would be very little difficulty in so satisfying the court—that an offer of a very little was the best that could be made in the circumstances. The court would then have no jurisdiction to withhold the decree. There would still be Clause 4, of course, but this is where we get into the jungle.
Clause 6 is supposed to provide the financial safeguards, and I believe that it will not do so. If that is right, a respondent will have to say to himself, "I had better oppose this decree on the grounds open to me under Clause 4". Then one has defended petitions, because this is a matter of defence under Clause 4. In any event, what is likely then to happen? One can visualise the court having before it two cases on the same day.
One involves a husband with plenty of money and the other a husband with no money. Is the court to say, when all the circumstances are equal, that it will grant divorce to the first party because the financial conditions can be met, but not to the other party? What nonsense we are making of divorce and marriage in that way.

Sir M. Galpern: What is to happen to the decree if an offer is made and accepted, but never implemented?

Mr. Percival: That is a very practical problem. It crossed my mind when I saw that under Clause 6 (3) (b)
the court has obtained a satisfactory undertaking from the petitioner that he will make such financial provision for the respondent as the court may approve.
Everyone who has been professionally concerned with matrimonial affairs would, I think, agree that the difficult part is securing enforcement of any order or undertaking. The point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) is an extension of what I have been saying. I agree that it is a further difficulty.
I have been longer than I intended because I have given way a number of times. I have heard it said in this debate


and in the Second Reading debate on the former Bill that it is desirable to simplify the law. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) said on the last Second Reading that this was an attempt to provide a civilised way of dealing with these disputes. Speaking purely as a lawyer, I think that it will create a jungle in the practice of the law.
I shudder to think what inquiries may be opened up under Clause 4. In the previous Second Reading debate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone and the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) were at least agreed on one thing—that there may be some cases where in the interests of the children a broken marriage should stay together, whereas in other cases it may be to the interest of the children that the parties should part. This is a matter which might be raised under Clause 4. I take it as a practical example of the difficult situation which was referred to in the last Second Reading debate.
Quite apart from that, one has only to read Clause 4 to see that the scope of inquiries which might be initiated far exceed anything which the divorce courts have ever been required to agree to or to decide upon. The promotors appreciate that something must be put in to provide an apparent safeguard against the rigours of the five-years provision. So they put in this Clause, which will create all sorts of practical difficulties in the law and leave all the difficult questions, as usual, to the courts—who of course are best able to deal with them, but for whom there will be created a great deal of new learning in law. If the House thinks that by passing this Bill it is simplifying the law, it is under a very considerable misconception.
Mr. Mortimer, who, I suppose, is as experienced as anyone in these matters, in an article in the Observer last year, said:
The new Divorce Reform Bill which comes up for debate in Parliament next month gives every sign of having been drafted with the aim of pleasing everybody. As a result, if it is enacted in its present form, it may well leave the persons concerned—husbands, wives, children, judges and lawyers—in a greater middle than before.
I think that there is great truth in those words.
For those reasons, so long as Clause 1 (1) (b), introducing the new five-year provision for divorce remains, the disadvantages of the Bill far outweigh the advantages. Speaking personally, I should like the Bill to have a Second Reading if there were any chance that the promoters would reconsider the five-year period. I am not against this experiment in divorce by consent after two years, but, having regard to what has been said this morning to the effect that when a Bill gets a Second Reading with such a provision in it it must be assumed that the House has accepted that principle—a view with which I cannot agree, but others take that view—although I should like to see possible improvements in the law provided by the Bill further discussed, if it is to be said that if one does not oppose the Bill one accepts the principle of five-year divorce against the will of the other party, I must vote against the Bill.

12.45 p.m.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: I want to make only a couple of short points. When the lawyers in this House disagree among themselves, as they have disagreed this morning, it puts far greater responsibility on those of us who are laymen back-benchers to try to come not only to a considered judgment but a right decision.
I assure my hon. Friends who have sponsored this Bill that, despite my conduct here this morning, I have not been unduly antagonistic towards it. Even at this time I am open to conviction on certain aspects of the Bill, although I must confess to feeling great alarm when I heard the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Dr. Gray), who said that he regarded this as only a transitional Measure. In simpler language, this is the thin end of the wedge—something which can be driven in harder later. That filled me with alarm for I think some of the proposals made by the Bill go much too far already.
It reminded me of the saying we used to have in the newspaper industry about births, marriages and deaths. We used to refer to "hatched, matched and dispatched". That seemed to be the attitude of my hon. Friend towards what many of us regard as the very sacred sacrament of marriage, which is something we should do everything in our power to preserve while recognising that


there are difficult circumstances. This is where I have some sort of agreement with the sponsors of the Bill. We all have knowledge of cases in which tremendous hardship is imposed on some people as a result of estrangement and living apart. In the words of the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) this is a case of trying to weigh the advantages against the disadvantages, and that is not very easy.
I could not understand the Solicitor-General suggesting that the Government's attitude to this Bill was one of neutrality. I was a Whip for 12 years and I would not have put that interpretation on a Bill for which the Government have provided time. When it comes to a question of what is and what is not right for the House to consider, I assure my right hon. and learned Friend that I could give him examples of three or four Bills waiting at present which are of far greater importance than this Bill. I do not regard this as Government neutrality.
What worries me tremendously about the Bill is that the safeguards are not nearly adequate enough. Whether we like it or not, we as mere men must admit that women need much more protection in the matter of divorce than do men. Women are, generally speaking, the ones who suffer the most. By the very nature of things—the family they have to care for after the husband has deserted them—it is far more difficult for women to face up to the responsbilities which become theirs on desertion. At the end of two or five years if a husband can obtain a divorce and leave his wife stranded, she is in serious trouble.
I am prepared to be convinced on the aspect of financial provision, but there is no safeguard in the Bill. The Solicitor-General's statement that this matter will be looked after in the review which is now taking place in the social services is not sufficient. If anything, it is the soundest possible argument why we should defer consideration of the Bill, because this is the sticking point for me. The Bill contains little or no basic financial provision. I believe that in the courts lawyers will tear this to pieces on the grounds of lack of financial provision.
For these reasons, I suggest that it would be wise for the sponsors of the

Bill to agree that it shall be at least deferred for the time being and held in abeyance until we know whether the amended social security provisions are adequate. When we see those provisions we may want to consider whether it is just to impose such financial burdens on the ordinary man who subscribes to the fund. It may not be right to do so. Before deciding whether to give the Bill a Second Reading we need to see what the proposals are.
I imagine that the sponsors of the Bill do not want to lose the Bill. It would be better if they of their own volition withdrew the Bill, if only for the time being, and then with far more information at our disposal shortly after we return from the Recess we may be in a far better position to make a considered judgment and decide on which side the advantages fall most heavily.

12.53 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wood: I have always found it impossible to spend any amount of time with anyone or anything, whether it is a human being or a piece of paper, without getting to know that person or that paper quite well. Having sat with this piece of paper in front of me morning, noon and night last summer, I have come to the conclusion that it is not so much bad as utterly bogus.
I say this because I know that it has attracted a considerable amount of support, by these bold words in Clause 1:
the sole ground on which a petition for divorce may be presented to the court by either party to a marriage shall be that the marriage has broken down irretrievably.
The country has said, "This is modern. This is progressive. This is even what the Church wants".
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) has pointed out very clearly that Clause 2 makes it obvious that the question of marriage breakdown is a myth. That Clause ensures that the majority of marriages will go on being dissolved in future, just as they are now, because of adultery, cruelty or desertion, or, as now, because the husband and the wife agree to call it a day. I admitted on an earlier occasion—I do so again—that the Bill will enable them to do this rather more


easily than at present, but there will be no substantial change.
Therefore, the whole of the first page of the Bill, in spite of all the brave words about breakdown of marriage, will make no recognisable difference whatsoever. It will not be marriage breakdown; it will be the matrimonial offence or agreement to part, just as now, which will continue to be the grounds for divorce.
Many years ago the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) introduced a Bill with only one proposal—to make unilateral divorce possible against the will of the respondent after a seven-year separation. I wish that the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) had confined his Bill to this one change, because it is the only major change which the Bill proposes. The Bill could then properly have been called the "Unilateral Divorce Bill", and the House and the country could have judged more easily for or against the single proposition whether it were wise to make divorce possible where, in the words of Clause 2 (1) (e),
the parties to the marriage have lived apart for a continuous period of at least five years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition.
This paramount issue in this Bill is confused by other proposals, quite welcome in themselves, but by comparison utterly insignificant. For instance, the reconciliation provisions in Clause 3 are welcome, but few of us realistically expect that they will keep alive more than a handful of marriages which are approaching dissolution. Nor are the provisions of Clause 4 or the financial provisions of Clause 6 likely to mitigate the harsher effects of the Bill and especially the effects of unilateral divorce, to which I now return.
Those who support this proposed power of unilateral divorce base themselves conveniently on the principle of marriage breakdown, which is otherwise, as I have tried to show, quite irrelevant to the Bill. I suggest that the whole purpose of its introduction is to form an attractive foundation for this new proposal.
The sponsors of the Bill maintain that five years' separation is unmistakable evidence of marriage breakdown. Can we always be so sure? I know of some-

one whose husband went to live with a young girl, leaving her with four children. He was away for some years, certainly more than five. He asked his wife to divorce him. She refused. Two years ago he returned to his wife and they are now living happily together. But the supporters of this proposal are determined that it must be made possible to bring such apparently lifeless marriages to an end, even against the will of the respondent.
They pray in aid, as the hon. Member for Rhondda West and the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn, St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) did, a number of hard cases. Perhaps it is time that some of us who remain profoundly disquieted by this proposal pointed out more clearly than we have done so far that all the hard stories are not on one side. I quote from a letter written by a wife threatened by divorce against her will:
I still love my husband very much and still live in hope that one day he may return to us. I can bear being separated, but I could not bear being a divorced woman. I should have nothing left to hope for … while we are separated he is still part of me and is still my husband … I think there should be some changes made, but not in the way where we should be forced into divorce and left with nothing but despair.
Wives or husbands who refuse divorce are castigated as petty, spiteful or vindictive. If they do it for religious reasons, they are said to be hopelessly bigoted. The still loving wife who has the courage to hold on to her last, faint hope is thought to be distinctly unsporting. But whether they are vindictive, bigoted or unsporting—and it is ridiculous to apply any of these adjectives to some of the perplexed women most of us have met—rightly or wrongly, but I believe naturally, a large number of women are very frightened.
I do not light frightening ladies, and 10 days ago the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South made things far worse. She was perfectly right about the decline of male charms as we plunge into middle age, but all she succeeded in doing was to terrify the men as well.
This proposal—the one substantial change in the Bill—would do two things: first, it would bring relief, but it would bring pain to many more; secondly, it would relieve hardship, but it would do so at a very heavy price, and


the price would be the threat to the security of a large number of marriages which would for the first time become breakable where they had not been breakable before.
The Government have accorded to the hon. Member for Rhondda, West the rare privilege of providing extra time very early in the Session to enable him to make progress with the Bill. I think that most of us felt that the Solicitor-General must have had his tongue in his cheek when he was talking about neutrality. If he did not have his tongue in his cheek, will he answer very seriously the question of what good reason there is for the Government not now taking over the Bill and treating it as a Government Bill?
The true significance of the Government's action is that they have now left behind what has recently been described as the discomfort of sitting on the fence with their ears to the ground. They have at last taken sides, and they want the Bill to become law. They must therefore accept the consequences, and especially the financial consequences, of the Bill.
During almost the whole of the long Committee stage on the previous Bill we had the welcome, benign and courteous presence of the Solicitor-General, but, naturally he was not in a position to answer the wide range of complicated questions which were then asked. He opted out again, very naturally, from answering those questions this morning. But I should like to know why there are not any Ministers beside him from the Department of Social Service, from the Treasury and the Home Office. This time these questions are being asked again.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: indicated assent.

Mr. Wood: The hon. Lady nods. The questions are being asked again and they were forcefully put in the speech which she made 10 days ago when she sounded full of anxiety, although as we know she supports the Bill, about the future if the Bill becomes law.
As the hon. Lady said in her speech, these and other important matters are not for private Members, but for her right hon. Friends, and the difficulties to which she drew attention are certain to be increased by the compulsory divorce for

which the Bill provides. The Government, especially now that they have provided time, cannot opt out of their difficulties. They cannot avoid concerning themselves, first, with the new financial obligations which the Bill is to impose on them and, secondly, with the potential hardship which will be suffered and the injustice inflicted if the present provisions are not improved.
It is no longer a Private Member's Bill for which the Government can disclaim responsibility. The Government are actively helping to get it through, and I therefore hope that we shall be assured of two things: first, that the Government clearly recognise the financial and other consequences of making the Bill law; and, secondly, that they accept the obligation to take steps to relieve the hardship which, without their intervention, will certainly be suffered.

1.4 p.m.

Mr. Donald Dewar: A short time ago my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) made a speech which I thought deeply sincere and deeply emotional when he referred to the institutions of love and honour. I hope that he and everyone else will accept that there are people who genuinely support the Bill, but who still value the institution of marriage as highly as he does, and who will not vote for the Bill under the impression that we are moving towards the permissive society which he fears and which he directly said would result from the Bill and which he hinted to be the aim of at least some of its supporters. I can only say that those are not my motives.

Mr. Simon Mahon: I want to make it absolutely clear that I have no doubt that there are hon. Members who are most active in their pursuit of the permissive society.

Mr. Dewar: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will compromise and agree that there are at least many people who think that this is a sensible reform and who do not necessarily fall into that category. I hope that we can agree at least about that.
I do not know whether he wants to go back to the pre-1857 situation when divorce was not recognised, at least in general terms, in the law of England. I start from the assumption that there is


divorce, that there is a law of divorce, that there is a social case for a law of divorce, and that what Parliament ought to be doing is trying to construct such a law which will face the realities which we see around us in Britain today and which are apt to remain, and which maximises content among ordinary married people in Britain.
There is not necessarily any virtue in the law as it is constituted at the moment and which keeps in being the legal fiction of marriage in conditions from which in fact all moral, ethical, physical or other content has long disappeared. I want to make it perfectly clear that I do not regard the Bill as being an attack on the institution of marriage.
It has been said, and the hon. and learned Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell) put the argument earlier, that there has been a dramatic rise in the number of divorces in this country, but I do not accept from that that in some sort of way we ought to resist change and try to hold our ground. There is always a tendency for the law to be out of touch with what is happening in society. I suppose that it is inevitable that the law always reflects old and not necessarily contemporary values. But if we were to listen to some of the more extreme advice offered in the Chamber today that situation would be aggravated.
The divorce rate has gone up for a number of reasons. I think that the hon. Member for Bootle would be the first to accept that one obvious reason is the availability of legal aid. Another is the very statistical fact that people are marrying younger and that marriages are lasting longer in that people are living longer, which means that more people are at risk. There are many obvious reasons for this increased rate.
Whether the Bill is passed or not, the vast majority of people will continue to enter the state of matrimony under the impression at the time that it is for good. People do not go to a church or registry office—and in this connection I make no distinction—telling themselves that if the marriage does not work, they can always get out of it at some future date. People marry believing their marriage to be permanent, but I do not think that their general attitude will be changed by the Bill.
I believe that the Bill is a contribution to a sane and humane attitude to the law of divorce, and I congratulate the Government on providing time for it. I am not particularly interested in their neutrality on this question, but I am grateful that we have been given the opportunity to consider a matter of major importance, a matter which has been thrashed around debating chambers in society for a long time. Parliament would be making itself a laughing stock if, given this kind of situation, the Government did not provide time to allow some sort of decision to be taken on this issue by Parliament.
I support the Bill because I believe that it will result in reforms in two main theatres. I have long been dissatisfied—and I think that there is a wide measure of support in the House for this view—with a situation in which a divorce could not be obtained unless there was a matrimonial offence. On the whole this is wrong and it has been an invitation to people to produce the evidence necessary to get a divorce. It invites people who have decided that their marriage has not worked and, for reasons of which the House is aware, the increase in number of teenage marriages and so on, more and more people find themselves in this category—to undertake a clandestine and underhand way of trying to fix it so that they can go to the court with the necessary evidence of a matrimonial offence. This can only bring the law into disrepute. It is not a dignified or socially desirable situation, and about that we can all agree.
I know that there are still some hon. Members who think that this proposal is getting too near divorce by consent. This kind of concept of original sin stampedes many people into that position. As has been widely accepted, however, the present situation is divorce by consent if people wish it to be. If we went to the other extreme and took as the only ground for divorce the breakdown of a marriage, the court having established by full inquiry all the circumstances, the situation would still be divorce by consent, because it would be a very brave judiciary which, faced with a difficult issue, would not be prepared to accept the word of both parties that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and that there was absolutely no chance of the


parties coming together again. It will be found to be very difficult to get away from divorce by consent, and it has been over-valued in certain quarters.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: The hon. Gentleman talked about divorce by consent and says that this Bill might be that. Is not the whole purpose of Clause 2 (5) divorce without the consent of the other party? The other party has no say in the matter at all.

Mr. Dewar: I referred to the two main questions, and I now move on to the second. The point that I was making was that, with the two years with consent, there is an argument which was hoisted very high indeed. The objection to the Bill was that it was divorce by consent. The hon. Member is quite right. When we get on to the five-year period and the unilateral divorce, we get into much more difficult and complex waters. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) and a large number of others, that this is a matter of balance. It would be very wrong and arrogant, and a horrible oversimplification, to suggest that all the arguments were on one side or the other.
I accept the arguments of the sponsors that we should move in the direction of the Bill. I recognise that we must pay an enormous amount of attention to the financial and social interests, and the feelings of a wife. But there are third parties involved. There are people who can be victimised by the continuance of the legal fiction of a marriage long after it has broken down. Although I accept that there are people who will still be hurt, one can over-estimate the hurt involved.
I believe very strongly that the shock and distress is caused at the moment of desertion, and not at the moment of the law when it recognises, if this Bill goes through, a social fait accompli. It is when one has to face the neighbours and say, in the case of a wife, that one's husband has walked out, when it gets round that one has been deserted for the younger woman or the prettier woman or the more attractive prospect, it is then that one is really hurt and feels bitter.
Whether it is the wife who refuses a divorce out of religious conviction or spite, is to some extent a minor question. What

concerns me is that I do not think that, except in the most exceptional cases, the person can really be motivated by a hope of reconciliation. I would certainly feel that, taking all the parties concerned, and weighing it up, and everyone must do this individually, the balance falls, in terms of humanity and justice, in favour of this Bill.
The hon. and learned Member for Oldham, West, said that illegitimate children should be dealt with in some other way by improving their legal status. This is being a little naive, because the public stigma that attaches to illegitimacy will not be removed quickly or easily. Not so long ago in this House we were discussing the law of succession in Scotland and giving to illegitimate children the same rights as legitimate children have. The Conservatives opposed most vigorously an attempt to put legitimate and illegitimate children on the same basis. It is a little facile to say that one can remove the slur and stigma of illegitimacy in this way. This is a matter upon which we have to make up our minds. It is very important that we should have this.
It is perhaps wrong that I should be taking up the time of the House because I represent a Scottish city and this Bill does not extend to Scotland. I excuse myself on the grounds that the issues being debated here and the arguments being used, are extremely relevant to what will happen to Scottish law in the not too distant future. I feel very strongly that it would be wrong and unfair if divorce law north and south of the Border rested upon a completely different social basis. If this Bill gets the kind of Second Reading that I hope it will, and it gets through to the Statute Book, I hope that the Government will give careful consideration to the best, quickest, and most efficient way of getting a suitably amended Scottish Act on to the Statute Book.
As the Bill stands I do not believe that it is the clearest and most convenient way of achieving the necessary reforms. I recommend to the House the recommendations of the Scottish Law Commission. It started on a much more pragmatic basis saying, "Here is a social problem which must be answered." It answered the problem by amending the present matrimonial offences, and adding additional grounds to meet the particular


problems, This is a clearer and better way. I am unhappy about the way the whole structure of the divorce law has been demolished and then, most of it, smuggled in by the back door.
This is unfortunate. I very much prefer the suggestion of the Scottish Law Commission, which would have these additional grounds and would do without the plethora of judicial discussions and new definitions which I suspect have been imported into divorce law in this Bill. My plea is that we give this Bill a Second Reading and do it enthusiastically, because socially it is right, and ultimately the legal points can be looked at, I hope sympathetically, in Committee. I very much hope that the Government will remember that there is a law of Scotland that needs reform in the near future.

1.15 p.m.

Mr. Leo Abse: I am sure that the House will acquit me of discourtesy if my remarks in the attempt that I must now make on behalf of the sponsors of the Bill to meet the arguments which have been employed by those who are opposed to it, appear to be brusque, or too brief. For so long there has been public discussion on this that not even the considerable ingenuity of the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) and the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) have been sufficient in my view, and I think everyone's, to clothe their undoubtedly arresting presentation of their doubts in a novel form.
I do not believe that I can succeed where they have failed. I very much doubt whether anyone can possibly present pristine arguments for or against the Bill. The most controversial section of the Bill, the right of either party to a marriage slain by long separation to obtain a divorce was recommended by a Commission presided over by the first Archbishop of Canterbury of the Protestant Church in 1552. After 416 years of gestation, whatever else may be said, this Bill can hardly be described as one which should be deferred, or which is being given hasty consideration.
The House, despite the faulty recollection of the hon. Member for Chelsea, will know that on three occasions, when the hon. Lady for Flint, East (Mrs. White) put it to the House in 1951, when I put it

to the House in 1963 and when the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. William Wilson) put it to the House in 1967, the House has affirmed the principle by giving the Bill a Second Reading, only to find that its will has been frustrated, by the appointment of a Royal Commission, by procedural strategems in 1963, and by want of time last Session. That want of time occurred after a Committee stage of more than 38 hours.
When the House deals with legislation which impinges on human relationships, all past and some recent history shows that it is often in danger of slipping from what would be regarded as a proper cautiousness to a morbidity, if not prurience which does not enhance its reputation. I do not believe that this House will want to follow the droll examples of past Parliaments, like those who hesitated over the dangers to the institution of marriage if a widower was permitted to marry his dead wife's sister.
On the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Bill, there were 19 Second Readings in the Commons and 13 in the Lords, but it finally reached the Statute Book in 1907. The institution of marriage survived that shock, even though we still have hon. Members who are the descendants of illicit progeny, because of the dilly-dallying and hesitations of Parliaments of other days. In spite of the false jeremiads of the hon. and learned Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell) some divorce lawyers and certainly all sociologists know that the Bill comes before the House at a time in our history when marriage has never been more popular. As the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) rightly said, people are marrying younger and living longer. That means that their marriages cover a greater span.
Professor Titmuss has reminded us:
Never before in the history of English vital statistics has there been such a high proportion of married women in the female population under the age of 40 and, even more so, under the age of 30. Since 1911, the proportion married at age 15 to 19 has risen nearly fourfold: at age 20 to 24 it has more than doubled.
Such figures hardly support the extravagant claims that we are, as the hon. and learned Member for Oldham, West suggested, "Surging forward" to a steady deterioration of family life which, he said, has been going on for the last 25 years.

Mr. Bruce Campbell: Do not the figures speak for themselves?

Mr. Abse: Clearly, the hon. and learned Gentleman belongs in that category of Englishmen who are always despondent about their own times. There always have been such lugubrious men, and their joint testimony would show that this country has been going downhill fast since the time of the Norman Conquest.
If one cites the divorce statistics, ignoring the increasing number of marriages in the community, and on average their longer duration, and ignoring the enhanced risks and exporsures which have come, together with the benefits, to wives who, fortunately, today are not serfs, but working partners, one is bound to make a banal assessment of the state of family life. It is quite extraordinary that anyone should pray in aid these divorce statistics and ignore the fact that the main reason why there is now more divorce is that in the past it was available only to the well-to-do.
It is odd that, although we remember with repugnance the grim poverty of the 19th century, and the acute hardship in regions such as those where my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) and myself were brought up, what we too often forget is that there was always, until legal aid was brought into existence, among working people gross marital misery which was attendant upon the lack of divorce facilities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) spoke with his characteristic vigour and sincerity. He reproached the Government because they have made available time for the House to express its will on a considerable number of social reforms. Let him remember that for some of us who are Socialists there are no boundaries to our compassion. We do not limit our compassion to the sick, the unemployed and the disabled. We believe that we should extend it to those who are illegitimate and those who are in deep and distressing marital woe. Therefore, when the Government provide time for every man to make a decision, according to his own conscience, we do not believe that they are departing from the fine principles which we expect to inform a Socialist Government.

Mr. Simon Mahon: I do not doubt my hon. Friend's sincerity and I would go a long way with him in his compassion. My membership of the same organisation should prove that. However, if the Government are so understanding, why did they not sponsor the Bill?

Mr. Abse: It is right that the Government should decide that every member of every party should have the opportunity freely to vote according to his conscience on an issue of this kind. That is what the Government have decided. I believe that in the country even people who oppose the Bill will be glad that there has not been a party dogfight over the Bill but that it is entirely free from party partisanship.
At least the hon. and learned Member for Oldham, West was unequivocal in his opposition. He says that our divorce laws are not perfect but that there is not very much wrong with them. For a lawyer, he is taking an eccentric view. As the Archbishop of Canterbury's Committee, in its Report entitled "Putting Asunder", says, all the judges and lawyers who gave evidence before it agreed that the law as it stands is unsatisfactory, however much they differed concerning the remedies which should be applied.
However, if the hon. and learned Gentleman's view is eccentric, it is at least blunt. He declares that he will fight the Bill at every stage. So be it. What concerns me is the attitude, overt or implicit, which would once again allow a Second Reading to a Bill in the hope that somewhere along the line that part of it which seeks to deal with a major social problem can either be wrenched away or so whittled down that its practical application, except for the wealthy, becomes improbable.
As I have said on three occasions in recent years, the hopes and expectations of at least 250,000 people who are reluctantly unmarried and who are permanently living together have been raised by very clear votes in the House. All those expectations and hopes have subsequently been dashed. For years following the Second Reading of the 1951 Bill my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East was deluged, as she has often told me, with letters, pleas and reproaches. For five years since the House gave my Bill a Second Reading


in 1963 I, too, have been so pursued. Since last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South, like my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West, has also been deluged with letters mainly from respectable elderly people desperately anxious to obtain regularisation of their position.

Mr. Bruce Campbell: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would wish to give the House the true picture concerning his postbag. Would he say how many letters opposing the Bill he has received?

Mr. Abse: My point is that we have come to a decision on three occasions after national debates, and that people who wish to be married parents and who wish their illegitimate children to have married parents have a right to a clear decision. It would be shameful if the House continued to play what these people regard as a cruel cat and mouse game with their deepest needs.
I am aware that the Bill has its blemishes. Each of us doubtless would like to see in the Bill something which stresses his or her psychological prejudice. But the Bill is a compromise. It embodies faithfully the proposals for divorce reform put forward by the Archbishop of Canterbury's Committee which were regarded as practicable by the Law Commissioners.

Mr. Worsley: The hon. Gentleman says that the Bill embodies faithfully the proposals of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Committee. He must know that that is quite untrue. That Committee proposed an inquest on each marriage, and that is not provided for in the Bill.

Mr. Abse: I said that the Bill embodied faithfully the proposals put forward by the Archbishop of Canterbury's Committee which were regarded as practicable by the Law Commissioners. The hon. Gentleman should know that the Committee met the Law Commissioners and issued an agreed document which is available, as every Member who served on the Standing Committee which considered the previous Bill knows. The Law Commissioners assisted in drafting this Bill which they believed to be not only practicable but which faithfully embodied the agreement reached with the Archbishop of Canterbury's Committee.
Although the Bill has blemishes, perhaps because it is a compromise, we cannot talk as if we can start anew, de novo. If I could start afresh in creating our divorce law, I would permit divorce only when it could be shown to be in the interests of the children of the marriage. There are doubtless hon. Members who, if they could start afresh in such circumstances, would put forward their ideas. The fact is that we have behind us centuries of the doctrine of the matrimonial offence, the doctrine which interjects into our divorce law an insistence that when a marriage is dead—

Mr. Peter Mahon: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Abse: No more, I have given way a great deal—it may only be so declared by the courts when one partner has been proved guilty. Thus it follows, as a consequence of the doctrine of the matrimonial offence, that always we have to have the situation that one party must be proved wholly innocent and the other partner must be proved wholly guilty. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) has indicated, total innocence and total guilt are rare phenomena.
Precisely because such a doctrine so rarely corresponds to the realities of the marital situation, the present law has become so totally misshapen and so painfully distorted. Because guilt has to be proved, our divorce courts are replete with charades that bring law and the institution of marriage into disrepute.
It is because of this wretched doctrine that the perjuries, the rigged adulteries and the faked desertions masking the mutuality of the original parting, because of which we have the puffed-up allegations of cruelty and the publicised discretion statements, which this Bill gets rid of, discretion statements which mean that children have to face emblazoned abroad the fact that not only their father but their mother, has committed adultery.
Because of the doctrine of the matrimonial offence, judges and lawyers are reduced to the rôle of scavengers having to scrape round for the worst obscenities they can find within a married life and, within the present accusatorial system, hurling all their wretched findings across the courtroom. Issues of maintenance and


the welfare of the children are being substantially determined as a consequence of this doctrine by findings of guilt or innocence which are often irrelevant. As a result of this doctrine, public money is being squandered on unnecessarily long defended and cross-petition cases, in which both parties want a divorce but in which the real needs of the parties and of the children are too often smothered under days, if not weeks, of courtroom scenes of bitterness and acrimony which, unfortunately, are frequently then publicised as a consequence of the Press publishing in great detail the judge's summing-up.
The Bill seeks—I admit falteringly, but with a clear general sense of direction—to hack our way out of the jungle of lies, half-truths, miserable strategems and ugly publicising that the ground of the matrimonial offence has proliferated.
The declared substitution in the Bill of the doctrine of matrimonial breakdown means that attention can at least begin—I do not claim any more—to be riveted, not upon punishment, not upon the public branding of alleged sinners, but on the question of whether the marriage can be healed; and if lamentably it cannot be healed, then at least it can be ended by the parties, who, after being apart for two years, could almost privately, with dignity and without public recrimination, see the end of their lamentably dead marriage.
I am convinced that only if we emancipate ourselves from the doctrine of the matrimonial offence can we even begin to move forward, as we will have to do, to considerations of how courts and lawyers can be deployed as marriage menders and not as marriage breakers.
I sometimes feel, after hearing some who have spoken in this debate and having heard some of those who have spoken against the Bill outside, that some people are so attached to regarding divorce as a public display of the battle of the sexes that when divorce reform is mentioned their dearest wish is to pursue the pitched battle in every available public forum. Every proposed change of the law is absurdly represented as a Machiavellian male plot to deprive the right of women, who are ungallantly represented as losing all their attractiveness at the age of 40.
At the risk of appearing to lack chivalry, I am bound to point out that divorce statistics do not confirm the claim of the innocence of womankind. Last year, in the provinces, more husbands divorced wives on grounds of adultery than wives divorced husbands. Infidelity is, alas, or perhaps inevitably, no male monopoly. What is more, marriage statistics certainly do not reflect a picture of unmarriageable middle-aged women.
Between 1941 and 1945, the largest concentration of divorced women remarrying was in the 30 to 44 age group. Now, the greatest concentration of divorced women remarrying is in the over-45 age group. This is part of the general trend which is reflected in the fact that the average age of remarriage of widows has increased from 45 in 1931 to 52 in 1961, and I understand that the trend is continuing.
The fact is that in three out of four marriages ended by divorce, the women fortunately remarry. Middle-aged women today are certainly not prepared to accept the assessment either of shrewish members of their own sex or the conceits of some male Members of this House who would write off a woman at 45. Moreover, the myth—and it is a myth—that middle-aged husbands are manoeurving to discard their wives and children finds no substantiation in the Registrar-General's figures. Apart from the fact that divorce rates are higher for childless couples—in two-thirds of divorces there are either no children or only one child—the most vulnerable point in marriage appears to be in those between five and nine years' duration.
The longer duration marriages of the middle-aged are remarkably stable. As a middle-aged husband with children, that is what I would expect. Middle-aged couples are bound together not by law, but by love. Fortunately for most, it grows through the years as the couples share together the memories of family crises, travail, joys, struggles and concern for the little ones, their defeats and their successes. There is no more ludicrous notion than that it is a secret desire of every middle-aged man to quit the affection and comfort of a home in which a wise wife appreciates his every need and patiently knows his every foible to go swinging for ever with some featherbrained young woman in the local Mecca.
When radically reforming the whole of our divorce law the House should not


overlook the change of personal status. The fact that some women would no longer be legal wives may affect a comparatively small number of middle-aged women as a result of the Bill. It cannot however be right that the whole restructuring of the law should be estopped by the dislike of these women that the law should overtly acknowledge that their marriage has long since died.
Certainly, the Bill ensures that their financial 5tatus will at least not be made worse. If it is passed, the Bill will mean that in no country in the whole Commonwealth will greater powers have been given to the judges to ensure that no husband petitioning in the court after being apart five years will have his divorce unless and until, as far as human ingenuity permits, the fairest financial provision available is made for the wife.
The court will have the power, at the very moment of the husband's greatest weakness, when he is a supplicant begging for a divorce, to refuse the decree absolute until, if the court so wishes, he is stripped of half, three-quarters or indeed all his possessions. Within the power given in the Bill, the court can refuse a divorce if the wife would possibly be losing a public pension in the event of the husband dying first, unless a deferred annuity was first purchased by the husband. The court could, if it so wished—and it will have the power—insist that as a precondition of a divorce, in secure form, the husband nominated his wife—not his common law wife—as the beneficiary under a private pension scheme.
I can understand those who fear that the giving of these considerable powers to judges may make the Bill too restrictive. What I cannot understand are those who doubt these powers because they seem to feel that Her Majesty's judges, having metamorphosised themselves into the avant guarde of the permissive society, will not exercise their powers. I have no doubt that if a man is a "basket", he will be treated as a "basket" by the court. There is no question under the Bill of any automatic right to divorce to a man—or woman—if he petitions the court on the ground

that he has been living apart from his spouse for five years.
It is true that it may well be easier for a wealthier man to have had two wives, than it will be for a poorer one. There is no novelty in that; it has been going on since Solomon's time. The Bill will not mean that an old-age pensioner who has been living with a woman for 30 years, and, until his retirement made it impossible, paid regular maintenance to his legal wife, perhaps for decades, will necessarily be debarred from getting a divorce. In such a case, when doubtless both the wife and the old-age pensioner will be recipients of supplementary benefits, the judge could grant a divorce though the pensioner could probably pay his wife little or nothing. The sponsors of the Bill are certainly not prepared to pull out words which will mean that we shall be creating one law for the rich and one for the poor.
What the Bill cannot do is to transform Britain into an egalitarian community. What it cannot do is to overhaul the whole National Insurance scheme, though I am pleased to see that it has motivated the Government—as we heard from the Solicitor-General this morning—to undertake a considerable review of the position of divorced wives, and that is a positive achievement.
The Bill cannot do what is to be attempted by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop), which is to create some measure of community of property, such as an egalitarian family system demands. It is true, alas, that the Bill cannot mobilise social workers to be attached to the courts to assist in every case where custody of the child is in issue. The Bill cannot initiate the State collection of maintenance so that a wife receives her payments regularly, instead of irregularly. All these things the House will perhaps bring about one day. In the meantime, the Bill affirms its intentions not to have an easier divorce law, but to have a more rational one, one that is more humane, more compassionate, and, in my view, more in keeping with the civilised feelings of our people.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: Mr. Peter M. Jackson  (The High Peak) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 188, Noes 103.

Division No. 41.]
AYES
[1.45 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Nott, John


Albu, Austen
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Ogden, Eric


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oram, Albert E.


Allen, Scholefield
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Orbach, Maurice


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Orme, Stanley


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hamling, William
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Hannan, William
Palmer, Arthur


Barnett, Joel
Harper, Joseph
Park, Trevor


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Haseldine, Norman
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Beaney, Alan
Hay, John
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hazell, Bert
Pavitt, Laurence


Bessell, Peter
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Bidwell, Sydney
Heffer, Eric S.
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Bishop, E. S.
Henig, Stanley
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Herbison, Rt. Hn, Margaret
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Booth, Albert
Hilton, W. S.
Price, William (Rugby)


Boston, Terence
Hobden, Dennis
Probert, Arthur


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hooson, Emlyn
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hornby, Richard
Randall, Harry


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Rees, Merlyn


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Richard, Ivor


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Huckfield, Leslie
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Roebuck, Roy


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rose, Paul


Cant, R. B.
Hunt, John
Royle, Anthony


Carlisle, Mark
Hunter, Adam
Ryan, John


Carmichael, Neil
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Chapman, Donald
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Sheldon, Robert


Coe, Denis
Jeger,Mrs.Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Short, Mrs. René e (W'hampton,N.E.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Sinclair, Sir George


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Spriggs, Leslie


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Judd, Frank
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kenyon, Clifford
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Swingler, Stephen


Dewar, Donald
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George



Lestor, Miss Joan



Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Thornton, Ernest


Dickens, James
Lipton, Marcus
Urwin, T. W.


Dobson, Ray
Lubbock, Eric
Varley, Eric G.


Doig, Peter
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Donnelly, Desmond
McCann, John
Wallace, George


Dunnett, Jack
MacColl, James
Watkins, David (Consett)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Macdonald, A. H.
Weitzman, David


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Mackie, John
Wellbeloved, James


Eadie, Alex
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Whitaker, Ben


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mapp, Charles
White, Mrs. Eirene


Ellis, John
Marks, Kenneth
Whitlock, William


Emery, Peter
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Ennals, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Ensor, David
Mayhew, Christopher
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Millan, Bruce
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Faulds, Andrew
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Finch, Harold
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Winnick, David


Fisher, Nigel
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Molloy, William
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Moonman, Eric
Woof, Robert


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Younger, Hn. George


Forrester, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)



Fowler, Gerry
Morris, John (Aberavon)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Freeson, Reginald
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Mr. Daniel Awdry and


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Murray, Albert
Mr. Peter M. Jackson.


Cordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Newens, Stan





NOES


Alldritt, Walter
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Doughty, Charles


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Dunn, James A.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Eden, Sir John


Bence, Cyril
Coleman, Donald
Errington, Sir Eric


Biggs-Davison, John
Cooke, Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Black, Sir Cyril
Corfield, F. V.
Fortescue, Tim


Body, Richard
Costain, A. P.
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Galpern, Sir Myer


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Gibson-Watt, David


Bullus, Sir Eric
Currie, G. B. H.
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan




Glover, Sir Douglas
McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maddan, Martin
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Goodhew, Victor
Maginnis, John E.
Speed, Keith


Cower, Raymond
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Stodart, Anthony


Grant, Anthony
Marten, Neil
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Maude, Angus
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mawby, Ray
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Monro, Hector
Taylor,Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)


Hawkins, Paul
Montgomery, Fergus
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
More, Jasper
Tuck, Raphael


Holland, Philip
Murton, Oscar
Waddington, David


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Iremonger, T. L.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Weatherill, Bernard


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Percival, Ian
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Pink, R. Bonner
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Pounder, Rafton
Worsley, Marcus


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wylie, N. R.


Loveys, W. H.
Price, David (Eastleigh)



McAdden, Sir Stephen
Prior, J. M. L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McGuire, Michael
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Mr. Simon Mahon and


Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Mr. Kenneth Lewis.


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Scott-Hopkins, James

Question put accordingly:—

The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 106.

Division No. 42.]
AYES
[1.51 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Albu, Austen
Ellis, John
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Emery, Peter
Lipton, Marcus


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ennals, David
Lubbock, Eric


Allen, Scholofield
Ensor, David
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
McCann, John


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Faulds, Andrew
MacColl, James


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Finch, Harold
Macdonald, A. H.


Barnett, Joel
Fisher, Nigel
Mackie, John


Beaney, Alan
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mapp, Charles


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marks, Kenneth


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Bessell, Peter
Forrester, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J


Bidwell, Sydney
Fowler, Gerry
Mayhew, Christopher


Bishop, E. S.
Freeson, Reginald
Millan, Bruce


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Booth, Albert
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Boston, Terence
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Molloy, William


Braine, Bernard
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Moonman, Eric


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Hamling, William
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hannan, William
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Haseldine, Norman
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hay, John
Murray, Albert




Newens Stan


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hazell, Bert
Nott, John.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Ogden, Eric


Cant, R. B.
Heffer, Eric S.
Oram, Albert E.


Carlisle, Mark
Henig, Stanley
Orbach, Maurice


Carmichael, Neil
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Orme, Stanley


Chapman, Donald
Hilton, W. S.
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Coe, Dennis
Hobden, Dennis
Palmer, Arthur


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hooson, Emlyn
Park, Trevor


Crawshaw, Richard
Hornby, Richard
Parker, John (Dagewham)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Pavitt, Laurence


Dalyell, Tarn
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Huckfield, Leslie
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrsh re, S.)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Dewar, Donald
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Hunt, John
Probert, Arthur


Dickens, James
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Dobson, Ray
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Rees, Merlyn


Doig, Peter
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Richard, Ivor


Donnelly, Desmond
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Ridley, Hn Nicholas


Dunnett, Jack
Johnson-Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Roebuck, Roy


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Judd, Frank
Rose, Paul


Eadie, Alex
Kenyon, Clifford
Royle, Anthony


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Ryan, John




Sharples, Richard
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Thornton, Ernest
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Sheldon, Robert
Urwin, T. W.
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Short, Mrs. René e (W'hampton, N.E.)
Van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Varley, Eric G.
Winnick, David


Sinclair, Sir George
Vickers, Dame Joan
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Snow, Julian
Wallace, George
Woof, Robert


Spriggs, Leslie
Watkins, David (Consett)
Younger, Hn. George


Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Weitzman, David



Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Whitaker Ben
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
White, Mrs. Eirene
Mr. Daniel Awdry and


Swingler, Stephen
Whitlock, William
Mr. Peter M. Jackson.




NOES


Alldritt, Walter
Grant, Anthony
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bence, Cyril
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Blggs-Davison, John
Hawkins, Paul
Percival, Ian


Black, Sir Cyril
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pink, R. Bonner


Body, Richard
Holland, Philip
Pounder, Rafton


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hunter, Adam
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Price, David (Eastlegh)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Iremonger, T. L.
Prior, J. M. L.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pym, Fancis


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Cooke, Robert
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Corfield, F. V.
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Costain, A. P.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Speed, Keith


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Loveys, W. H.
Stodart, Anthony


Cunningham, Sir Knox
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Currie, G. B. H.
McGuire, Michael
Summers, Sir Spencer


Dance, James
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Cromity)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Dempsey, James
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)


Doughty, Charles
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, [...])
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Dunn, James A.
Maddan, Martin
Tuck, Raphael


Eden, Sir John
Maginnis, John E.
Waddington, David


Elliott,R.W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Weatherill, Bernard


Errington, Sir Eric
Marten, Neil
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maude, Angus
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William




Wilkins, W. A.


Fortescue, Tim
Mawby, Ray
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Galpern, Sir Myer
Monro, Hector
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Gibson-Watt, David
Montgomery, Fergus
Worsley, Marcus


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
More, Jasper



Glover, Sir Douglas
Murton, Oscar
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Mr. Simon Mahon and


Goodhew, Victor
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Mr. Kenneth Lewis.


Gower, Raymond

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

ADJOURNMENT

The Business having been concluded, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put pursuant to the Standing Order (Sittings of the House (Suspended Sittings)).


Adjourned at one minute to Two o'clock p.m.

Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION

Scottish Regiments (Disbandment)

Mr. Younger: Mr. Speaker, I beg to ask leave to present to the House a public Petition against the disbandment of Scottish Regiments in general and of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders in particular.
This Petition was started last July when it was announced that a further six battalions were to be disbanded, including two Scottish ones—the Second Battalion Scots Guards and the First Battalion Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. During the late summer and autumn, support for the Petition swept through Scotland and also went deep into the heart of England, Northern Ireland and Wales. As a result, when I present it to the House today it has attached to it now fewer than 1,086,590 signatures.
I know that this House will treat with respect and sympathy a plea that clearly carries with it such massive public support. The Petition reads as follows:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled:
The Humble Petition of the Citizens of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland showeth that the Scottish Regiments in general and the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders in particular have an outstanding record in recruiting and military skill and have rendered notable service to this nation over many generations.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your House shall resolve that none of these Regiments should be disbanded at this time when the Army is in urgent need of more recruits, And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take the hon. Gentleman's point of order at the end of Question time.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: The same applies to the hon. Member for South-Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes).

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Dorset (Government Grants)

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government by how much the amount of Government grants to Dorset County Council will differ this year as compared with the year 1967–68.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): The first estimate of the rate support grants payable to Dorset County Council for 1968–69 amounts to £8,597,532, an increase of no less than £572,182 or 7·1 per cent. over the latest estimate for 1967–68. Corresponding figures for specific revenue grants and capital grants are not yet available.

Mr. King: Would not the hon. Gentleman accept that, in the light of built-in increases, this will be insufficient to maintain existing standards? Is it the Government's policy to force up rates within the county?

Mr. Skeffington: I do not accept that the grants are not sufficient. Indeed, they are very generous. I think that, in the circumstances, the people in the county will applaud what the Government have done.

Cheltenham Development Plan

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if, in view of the increase in twilight areas in Cheltenham, due to the uncertainty about future development, he will now give his decision on the Cheltenham development plan.

The Minister for Planning and Land (Mr. K. Robinson): I appreciate the


need for an early decision, but my right hon. Friend must be satisfied about the plan's traffic objectives in relation to Cheltenham's outstanding architectural and environmental qualities.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Even if it is taking the Government a long time to come to the right decision to keep the Argylls, why has it taken over one and a half years after the public inquiry to come to a decision on this most important matter to the whole future of Cheltenham? Can we not have some interim reply so that someone can get on with something?

Mr. Robinson: As the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware, following the inquiry the Cheltenham Borough Council had a change of heart and asked for the plan to be withdrawn. This has not been done, because it is the county plan and opposing views have to be carefully considered. As the line proposed for the new relief road has a very substantial impact on the character of Cheltenham, I want to make quite sure that we are doing what is best for the town before a decision is reached.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the delay, and the nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall do my best to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

St. Albans Development Plan

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he expects to announce his decision on the St. Albans Central Area Development Plan.

Mr. K. Robinson: My right hon. Friend has consulted the Hertfordshire County Council about proposed modifications. After it has consulted the St. Albans City Council, the proposed modifications will need to be published and comments invited before a decision can be taken.

Mr. Goodhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this matter has been hanging fire for a long time and is causing not only increasing inconvenience but hardship to people in St. Albans, who find their property is affected by the plan and do not always find the city council able to purchase, even when it wishes to do so, because of the reluct-

ance of the Government to give loan sanction in every case?

Mr. Robinson: The proposals needed much detailed and careful consideration before any conclusion could be reached. The demolition of about 700 properties was involved and over 200 objections were received. But we will avoid any undue delay.

Rates

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what he expects will be the average increase in local authority rates during the forthcoming financial year.

Mr. Skeffington: The rate poundage for 1969–70 will depend upon decisions yet to be taken by a large number of local authorities in the light of their individual assessments of needs. I see no reason, however, why the average increase should depart significantly from recent trends, particularly in view of the increase to 56 per cent. in the grant to be paid from central funds.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the hon. Gentleman identify inside that the amount of rate increase which will flow from the Government's action in restricting council rents? Whatever amount it is, does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is wholly contrary to the arguments used by his right hon. Friend for that imposition?

Mr. Skeffington: I do not accept that hypothesis, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman realised before he asked the question. The Government have made the most massive contribution of help to the domestic ratepayer that has ever been made by any Government. I should think the right hon. Gentleman would appreciate it.

Mr. Whitaker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the London ratepayers will be penalised by the empire-building of Conservative borough councils in splitting up the G.L.C. Parks Department, and that this will necessarily increase both bureaucracy and the rates.

Mr. Skeffington: I am not sure how far this arises from the original Question, but it is a matter which will have to come before my right hon. Friend in due course.

Mr. Peter Walker: In view of the announcement by the Minister of Housing that the rate improvement grant did not include the November increase in, for example, petrol, will the hon. Gentleman immediately move an increase Order to meet the considerable additional burden of the November measures?

Mr. Skeffington: The last rate support grant Order included increases to mid-November. Increases after that will be taken care of in any further increase order.

New Town (Leyland/Chorley)

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement about the proposed new town of Leyland/ Chorley.

Mr. K. Robinson: I hope to be able to make a statement later this week.

Mr. Davidson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. But will he bear in mind that North-East Lancashire wants an assurance that the needs of the area, particularly concerning better communications, will be taken into consideration before any final decision is reached, so that North-East Lancashire can share in the prosperity and vitality which it is expected the new town will bring to Lancashire?

Mr. Robinson: I can assure my hon. Friend that the proposal for a new town in central Lancashire and the needs of North-East Lancashire towns have been considered in parallel by the Government.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that nothing has so far come from the Government to reassure the people of North-East Lancashire on the very real fears voiced by his hon. Friend?

Mr. Robinson: I would recommend the hon. and learned Gentleman to await the statement which I hope to make later this week.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the expenditure of £400 million in Lancashire, as against that in more prosperous parts of the country, would be very welcome to many people in Lancashire and would be recog-

nised as being in accordance with the Government's regional policy?

Mr. Robinson: Although not necessarily accepting my hon. Friend's figure, I know that there is great enthusiasm for this proposal on the part of the Lancashire County Council and a number of authorities in the county.

Atmospheric Pollution (Pelaw-on-Tyne)

Mr. Conlan: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action he proposes to take to diminish the pollution of the air from the factory of Wailes Dove (Bitumastic) Limited, Pelaw-on-Tyne.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): Air pollution from the present operations, which are on a very limited scale, is being controlled by the best practicable means. The Alkali Inspectorate will continue to keep the factory under close observation and to give advice where necessary.

Mr. Conlan: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge publicly that this is a story that we have been hearing for two years, and that, in spite of the excellent work carried out by the alkali inspector and the inspectors of the local authority, the nuisance persists? Will he further recognise that the only solution is to revoke the planning approval given in 1966 and for the factory to be removed to a place away from residential property?

Mr. Greenwood: I know that this has gone on for a long time, and in 1968 alone the Alkali Inspectorate has visited the works 16 times; but the problems involved are extremely complicated. I hope that we shall be able to find the solution before it is necessary to resort to the drastic solution which my hon. Friend suggests.

Public Schools (Rate Relief)

Miss Lestor: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will take steps to abolish rate relief for public schools.

Mr. Skeffington: The recommendations of the Public Schools Commission about the fiscal benefits which independent schools obtain as charities are being considered by the Government, but I cannot yet make a statement.

Miss Lestor: Is my hon. Friend not aware that this continued concession to privilege by the Labour Government is considered by those of us who believe in equality of opportunity in education to be somewhat contradictory in our present educational situation? Would he, therefore, consider the whole classification of charities, particularly as it applies to public schools?

Mr. Skeffington: The point of view which my hon. Friend puts is very much in the minds of Ministers.

Mr. Evelyn King: Would the hon. Gentleman concede that in respect of any child privately educated the State makes a substantial net profit?

Mr. Skeffington: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will inform me of exactly the basis for that statement, which is not altogether clear to me.

Mr. Roebuck: Is my hon. Friend aware that the ratepayers of Harrow have to bear an unnecessary burden as the result of the charity which they give to Harrow School? Is he further aware that it is the only comprehensive school in the borough and that my constituents cannot send their children there, although they have to help support it through the rates?

Mr. Skeffington: This also is a factor of which the Government are aware, although I think that if my hon. Friend examines the way in which the resources element in the rate support grant is given, he will see that what happens is that what Harrow loses by this concession is made up from central funds. But this still does not mean to say that the system is right.

Mr. John Page: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the continuing pride of the people of Harrow in the contribution to the education of the people of this country which the school has provided over the years?

Mr. Skeffington: I do not think that this has anything to do with pride in the institution. The question is, what is a fair and just system of rating relief? This is something which the Government are considering.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Bromley (Home Loans Scheme)

Mr. Hunt: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will allow Bromley Council to advance an additional £160,000 under its home loans scheme, in view of the fact that this commitment had already been entered into before the Government's latest reduction in the council's quota.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): An additional quota to meet these commitments was given to Bromley Council on 21st November.

Mr. Hunt: That Answer is welcome as far as it goes, but will the Minister please always bear in mind that high property values in areas like Bromley mean that those of modest incomes must look to the council for loans to help them with house purchase; and, therefore, any restrictions he imposes in that respect strike very hard at young couples in particular in my constituency?

Mr. MacColl: This is one of a number of competing criteria that we have to take into account.

Blighted Properties (Value)

Mr. Hunt: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will introduce legislation to make it obligatory for local authorities to purchase at market value any properties blighted by redevelopment proposals without the necessity of the owners having to prove hardship.

Mr. E. Rowlands: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what progress he has made in his consideration of the memorandum submitted to him by the Chartered Lands Society on the question of compensation provision on planning and redevelopment; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. K. Robinson: This issue is being considered as part of the present review of compensation which will take into account the views among others of the Chartered Land Societies, with whom there have been three meetings.

Mr. Hunt: In the meantime, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that hardship is a very difficult factor to define and that it is a very shattering experience for people to find overnight that their home has become subject to redevelopment proposals; we should be able to afford to be generous to people who have suffered this kind of uneasiness and unhappiness?

Mr. Robinson: The Government recognise this problem, and in what might be called "near" cases of blight local authorities have been asked to purchase on a discretionary basis where there is hardship.

Mr, Macdonald: Is it not the case that redevelopment proposals are published so that public opinion can be brought to bear on them and, if necessary, alterations made to them? Therefore, if there were to be instant purchase, as is here suggested, would not the council possibly be buying properties for which it might have no use? Why should I as a ratepayer in Bromley have my money wasted in this way?

Mr. Robinson: One has to balance a number of considerations here. One must always have regard to hardship in the case of the individual.

Mr. Peter Walker: In view of the very real hardship caused on an increasing scale by planning blight, would not the Government urgently look at the possibility of at least guaranteeing building societies which are willing to provide mortgages for such properties? This is one of the very real problems involved.

Mr. Robinson: I should like to await the result of the review, which we expect some time next year.

Local Authority Land (Sale)

Mr. Winnick: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what consultations are taking place with local authorities on the question of selling land in their possession which was meant for council accommodation, but which such local authorities are now considering selling to private developers.

Miss Lestor: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many local authorities in the last two years have sold land in their possession

which was designed for council housing; and what is his policy in this matter.

Mr. MacColl: Local authorities do not need my right hon. Friend's consent to sell housing land unless it was acquired by compulsory purchase or is being sold below market price. Where his consent is required, he examines the case in the light of housing needs in the area.

Mr. Winnick: Is it not absolutely disgraceful that some councils, obviously Conservative-controlled, with housing shortages in their areas are willing to sell land in their possession for private development? If it was right for the Government to ban the sale of council houses in certain circumstances, would they not be willing to take the same action with councils willing to sell such land?

Mr. MacColl: I think that the present powers that we have to interfere in those two cases are enough to give us a general control over housing development.

Miss Lestor: Will not my hon. Friend agree that this selling of council housing land is accompanied by the selling of council houses? In Slough, 90 houses have been sold to date and 335 sales are going through the pipeline. Does he not think that these two happenings are likely to cause housing shortage in the rented area?

Mr. MacColl: The housing need is one of the points we particularly take into account, because one has to look at the whole picture—the number of council houses there are already and the possibility of getting more.

Mr. Allason: What is the Minister's advice to local authorities which are refused loan sanction for the development of land which they already own, in view of the heavy land charges they have to carry while the land is undeveloped?

Mr. MacColl: I would not give any advice unless I knew the particulars of the case.

Caravan Dwellers

Mr. Macdonald: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he proposes to fulfil the undertaking given during the Second Reading of the Caravan


Sites Bill last Session to bring in a Bill that will give to caravan dwellers similar protection to that which the Rent Act gives to the occupiers of houses.

Mr. Greenwood: I cannot yet forecast when the introduction of further Measures to protect caravan dwellers may be feasible. The Act of last Session has given a substantial measure of protection, and I am keeping the matter under review.

Mr. Macdonald: As Part I of the Act was just a holding exercise, and as Part II is still inoperative because the Minister will not give it his O.K., does not this delay mean that the good work of the last Session is, in large measure, abortive?

Mr. Greenwood: No, Sir. I think that my hon. Friend is going too far. The Act provides protection against eviction without court order and thus gives considerable protection to caravan dwellers. I am sorry that I cannot, at this stage, say when the amending legislation I hope for will be possible.

Council Dwellings (Service Charges)

Mr. Hilton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will seek to amend the Prices and Incomes Act, 1968, so as to enable him to control increases in local authority charges for services related to council dwellings, and also for rents of pram sheds, garages and other buildings which may be rented by the tenants of these dwellings.

Mr. K. Robinson: Under the present Act my right hon. Friend can prevent unreasonable increases in charges for services which an existing tenant must meet as a condition of his tenancy. Under the Prices and Incomes Acts, a reference could be made to the Prices and Incomes Board of unreasonable increases in charges for optional facilities if the evidence warranted such a reference.

Mr. Hilton: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that these increases should have been brought within the scope of the Prices and Incomes Act? Would he not further agree that an increase of 200 per cent. for the rent of a shed in which to keep the family pram is exorbitant and mercenary, especially when the particular revenue account of the Greater London

Council is in the black? Does he not think that there are serious anomalies here which need action now by the Government to bring these matters within the control of the Prices and Incomes Act?

Mr. Robinson: No, Sir. I think that the present powers give my right hon. Friend sufficient control in the present circumstances. The increase in service charges generally proposed by the Greater London Council was not unreasonable in my right hon. Friend's opinion and appeared to be justified by increased costs. Having given his decision, my right hon. Friend could not now vary or revoke it.

Mr. Lubbock: How could an increase of 50 per cent. in the charges made for lodgers be justified by increases in costs incurred by the Greater London Council? Will the right hon. Gentleman also say whether he thinks 12 per cent. increase in service charges for garages is not too high?

Mr. Robinson: I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that when authorities submit proposals for rent increases they must state whether those increases are accompanied by increases in service charges. My right hon. Friend has no evidence that any proposed increases in charges are unreasonable, but he would certainly take action if he came across an unreasonable proposal.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that certain local authorities are trying to get round the Prices and Incomes Act by seeking to transfer from the council to the tenant certain repair charges formerly borne by the council?

Mr. Robinson: If my hon. Friend has evidence of such a case, perhaps he will let me have particulars.

Rents

Mr. Hilton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will seek to amend the Prices and Incomes Act, 1968, so as to bring rents of new local authority dwellings within the control provisions of Part III, section 10.

Mr. K. Robinson: The Prices and Incomes Act gives my right hon. Friend power for the duration of the Act to limit


increases, in rents of existing houses as part of the Government's prices and incomes policy. While the fixing of rents for new houses raises different issues and in the Government's view must remain the responsibility of local authorities, my right hon. Friend expects authorities to exercise moderation in present circumstances.

Mr. Hilton: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that at the present rate of house building over 200,000 local authority tenancies will be created each year which are not brought within the scope of this Act? Are tenants to be sorted out according to whether they occupy a new or an old flat, or is the principle to be that all tenants ought to be protected under the prices and incomes legislation?

Mr. Robinson: No. The principle was that the House gave power to my right hon. Friend to control rents of existing tenancies. I think the House generally will accept that an existing tenant is in a different position from the prospective tenant of a property which has not yet been let

Mr. Nott: Is the Minister aware that the Government's prices and incomes legislation is a complete fraud from beginning to end, and nowhere more fraudulent than in its relation to council house rents?

Mr. Robinson: The answer to those supplementary questions is No Sir, and No Sir.

Housing Cost Yardsticks

10 and 11. Mr. Graham Page: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) whether he will make a statement on the review of housing cost yardsticks;

(2) what machinery he has set up to establish a regular review of housing cost yardsticks; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. MacColl: When my right hon. Friend introduced the housing cost yardsticks he undertook to review them at intervals of a year or less. The first review is now proceeding, in consultation with the local authority associations, but he is not yet ready to make a statement.

Mr. Page: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give some indication of when he will be ready? Is it not a fact that it is now two years since this review was promised in the appropriate circular? What is happening at the Ministry which prevents the Minister carrying out announced programmes?

Mr. MacColl: As a result of the review, we are getting interesting and sometimes rather varied experience and criticisms of the yardsticks. To be fair, we are anxious to get the right answers, but I hope that before long we shall be able to make a statement.

Mr. Costain: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government themselves have added so much to the cost of houses by S.E.T., import deposits, etcetera that this review should be not annual but whenever the Government increase the cost by their own actions?

Mr. MacColl: No. We have such good new subsidies and a tremendous response to our claim to get a larger number of house completions that we have to control public expenditure by having yardsticks to do it.

House Building (Costs)

Mr. Rossi: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what estimate he has made of the effect of the recent measures proposed by the Government on 22nd November on the cost of house building.

Mr. Allason: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is his estimate of the increase in house building costs resulting from the financial measures of November 1968.

Mr. Greenwood: The measures announced on 22nd November 1968 are likely to add about a quarter of 1 per cent. to the cost of housing construction.

Mr. Rossi: Is the Minister not aware that this adds approximately £5 to the cost of each house and the building industry depends a great deal—probably more than any other industry—on road transport for its materials? When will he begin to show some concern about the Measures of this Government which, one after the other, add cost to the housing of the people?

Mr. Greenwood: The first priority is to get the economy of the country right.

Mr. Allason: What representations has the Minister made to the President of the Board of Trade on the exclusion from the import deposits scheme of essential imported materials such as semi-processed wood?

Mr. Greenwood: It is not for me to tell the hon. Member what discussions I have had with the President of the Board of Trade, but timber raises important problems because raw and sawn timber are exempt and only in the case of planed timber does the deposit apply.

Mr. Peter Walker: In view of the fact that in 1964 and 1966 the main plank in the Labour Party's platform was to cut the cost of housing, is the right hon. Gentleman pleased or disappointed with the Government's performance?

Mr. Greenwood: No one welcomes increases in prices of housing, and I welcome co-operation by right hon. Gentlemen opposite in our endeavours to keep them down. The important thing is the number of houses that have been built and the very generous subsidies given by this Government, which are about four times those given by the Government of hon. Members opposite.

Building Scheme, Southwark

Mr. Murton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will make a statement about the recent £7½ million project by Southwark Council's Direct Labour Department.

Mr. MacColl: This scheme for about 1,400 dwellings was approved in 1966 on the basis that a separate management team should be employed, as advised by the National Building Agency. This team was set up, with the assistance of management consultants. I understand that work proceeded well to start with, but the month-to-month cost control revealed early this year that costs were beginning to exceed estimates; progress was also falling behind schedule. The council has now decided to bring in Messrs. Bovis Ltd. on a fee basis to manage the remainder of the work for it. Messrs. Bovis estimates that the cost will exceed the original estimate by about 13 per cent.

Mr. Murton: In view of the fact that excess costs are already in the nature of £400,000 and that the consultants' fee is £20,000, will the Minister confirm or deny that further excessive cost, in excess of £150,000, are very likely to take place?

Mr. MacColl: I think it too early to reach a final figure on what the increase will be.

Controlled Tenancies

Mr. Murton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will now take steps to bring into the system of fair rent regulation those controlled tenancies at present exempt.

Mr. K. Robinson: My right hon. Friend has no proposals in respect of controlled tenancies other than those set out in the White Paper, "Old Houses into New Homes".

Mr. Murton: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has had statutory powers for the past three years and it is already eight months since the White Paper was issued, is it not a disgrace that all the problems and claims of small landlords have not been attended to before now?

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Member will know that legislation is likely to come before the House in this Session. It will be for Parliament ultimately to decide on the form of the legislation, but in framing it we are taking into account the views expressed on the White Paper proposals.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will my right hon. Friend note the eagerness of hon. Members opposite to increase rents as widely and generally as possible?

Mr. Robinson: I noted it, but I was not unduly surprised.

Mr. Graham Page: Will the right hon. Gentleman also take note that it is to stop slums that we require to increase rents? Is the Minister of State aware that his right hon. Friend, now Secretary of State for Social Services, in Committee on the Rent Act, 1965, gave an assurance that controlled tenancies would become regulated tenancies? Does he repudiate that assurance now?

Mr. Robinson: No. I should like to study the terms of the assurance before


commenting upon it, but I certainly note the efforts of hon. Members opposite to put a respectable aura around their desire to help the landlords.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Will my right hon. Friend take note of the continued bleats we have; from the Opposition about the plight of private landlords? Will he consider legislation to give the right to private tenants to buy their property from the private landlord, which probably would solve this problem?

Mr, Robinson: I take note of the proposal made by my hon. Friend.

Rent Increases (Reductions)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether, in the light of the Government's new proposals to restrict consumer expenditure, he will reconsider his decision to impose the present cuts in rents charged by local authorities.

Mr. Grant: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government to what extent he takes into account increases in general rates when exercising his powers under the Prices and Incomes Act.

Mr. Arthur Jones: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will suspend the operation of his power under Section 10 of the Prices and Incomes Act, 1968, under which local authorities need prior approval for rent increases, in order to assist local authorities to minimise rate increases in 1969.

Mr. Roebuck: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government to what extent, when considering proposals from local authorities for reducing increases in council house rents, he takes into account the local authority rate contributions to such rents.

Mr. K. Robinson: This temporary control is an important element in the Government's prices and incomes policy and it would be quite wrong to abandon it. In considering local authorities' proposals, I expect them to raise their rate contributions only where the rent increases would otherwise exceed the recommended limits; but at the present time I consider it right to reject pro-

posals for rent increases which involve a substantial cut in a rate contribution normally made by the authority concerned.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of that Answer, is not the right hon. Gentleman, by restraining local authorities from raising rents to come somewhere near an economic level of those of their tenants on differential schemes who can afford it, working dead against the Chancellor of the Exchequer's policy of deliberately raising prices to restrict consumption? Both cannot be right.

Mr. Robinson: No. Reduction in rent increases is important to the tenants concerned. The total amount concerned is not significant in relation to total consumer demand, but a restraint in rent increases is important to the prices and incomes policy because housing is a necessity.

Mr. Grant: Is the Minister aware that as a result of his directive in Harrow there will be a substantially extra burden on the ratepayers there? Is his intention that the rates should go up, or to put off the evil day until he is ousted from office?

Mr. Robinson: I am aware that my right hon. Friend's decisions in the case of Harrow have resulted in considerable easement of the burden on tenants. All these considerations were taken into account when the matter was considered, and they have been discussed with the council.

Mr. Roebuck: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in a number of local authorities, such as Harrow, council tenants pay an unfair proportion of the cost of running old folks home and places like that? Will he also confirm that council tenants are ratepayers?

Mr. Robinson: Yes. I should think that the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question was self-evident. He will be interested to know that in Harrow the direction was that the rent increase average should be reduced from 20s. to 7s. 6d. a week and that the highest individual increase should be reduced from 31s. to 11s. 7d. a week.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Molloy.

Mr. Grant: On a point of order. In ciew of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I had already called Mr. Molloy.

Mr. Molloy: On the general question of rents, would my right hon. Friend look at the existing legislation which allows Tory councils to cheat by including in the housing revenue account many aspects of housing estate administration, such as lighting, roads and footpaths, which should be on the general rate account but are included and put on council house tenant's rents?

Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend may like to know that we are currently discussing the housing revenue account with the local authority associations.

Mr. Graham Page: Will the right hon. Gentleman say definitely whether it is Government policy to keep down the rents of council tenants and make the ratepayers pay?

Mr. Robinson: The Government's policy during the continuation of this phase of the Price and Incomes Act is to mitigate the increases in council rents in the interests of the policy.

Mr. Grant: On a point of order. As the Minister's answer is still unsatisfactory, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Roebuck: On a point of order. In view of the satisfactory nature of my right hon. Friend's reply, I look forward to the debate with interest.

Housing Programme (Ronan Point Report)

Mrs. René e Short: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps is he taking to ensure that the measures to be taken as a result of his advice to local authorities arising from the Ronan Point report do not hold back the housing programme.

Mr. Greenwood: The re-appraisal of designs for high blocks of flats and the carrying out of any necessary remedial work will inevitably mean delay in starting and completing some of these blocks

and may have an adverse effect on other housebuilding aspects. It may be that some authorities will change the emphasis of their housing programmes, and such a change could involve delay.

Mrs. Short: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, in resisting some of the rather potty engineers who have been very vociferous recently, that perfectly good and adequate international standards have been laid down by the C.E.B. and that these should not be exceeded? Will he also bear in mind that costs of new building could be considerably increased, which would be a matter of concern for all, if too stringent standards are adopted by his Department?

Mr. Greenwood: I appreciate the help that my hon. Friend has given throughout the Ronan Point discussions, which she has given from a well-informed point of view, and I will take into consideration the points that she has made.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Minister has admitted that this will adversely affect the building of flats and houses generally. Will he, concerning the area where this occurred, have discussions quickly to try to help the council regarding new building, rates and the costs involved in the disaster?

Mr. Greenwood: The Ministry is in close consultation with the London Borough of Newham on these subjects. We will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has just said.

Furnished Rent Tribunals

Mr. Allason: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will take steps to transfer the functions of furnished rent tribunals to rent officers and rent assessment committees.

Mr. K. Robinson: Integration of the two systems would require legislation, and I cannot at present say when this would be possible. In the meantime membership of rent tribunals and of rent assessment panels outside Greater London have been integrated and a similar step within Greater London is now being considered.

Mr. Allason: I do not quite understand. Will the Minister explain how he can integrate if he cannot do it, combine, without legislation?

Mr. Robinson: I said that integration of the two systems would require legislation. It is possible to arrange integration of individual membership without.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will give special consideration to the furnished tenant in view of the deep anxiety about many individual cases which might be helped by the kind of change proposed in the Question?

Mr. Robinson: I will certainly pay regard to the point made by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the Committee stage of the London Government Bill, 1965, I drew attention to the risk that landlords of unfurnished properties would stick in a few pieces of furniture and thereby escape the machinery of regulation? Will he make inquiries about the extent to which this has happened since 1965 and consider it a matter of urgency to bring in legislation such as he has mentioned?

Mr. Robinson: I will make inquiries to see whether the situation to which the hon. Gentleman refers has happened to any extent since 1965.

Mr. Graham Page: Will the Minister look up what his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services said during the course of the Rent Bill, 1965, when he gave an assurance that it was the intention of the Government to bring about this integration as soon as possible?

Mr. Robinson: I shall clearly have a lot of weekend reading of the speeches of my right hon. Friend.

White Paper (Legislation)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he intends to publish the Bill to implement the White Paper, Old Houses into New Homes; and, in view of tenants' resistance to the installing of bathrooms and lavatories which will arise from the proposal to take 400,000 improved homes out of control, if he will undertake to drop proposals for such decontrol.

Mr. Greenwood: The Bill to give effect to the White Paper, Old Houses into New

Homes, will be introduced during this Session; until it is published I cannot add to the statements of policy in the White Paper.

Mr. Allaun: Have not Leigh, Salford and certain other cities improved tens of thousands of old houses under existing powers? Therefore, whilst welcoming the other proposals, may I ask why it is necessary to insist on this one which, by trebling rents, will bring improvements to a complete halt?

Mr. Greenwood: Because not enough has been done by way of improvements, nor have houses been improved to the high standard to which it will be possible to improve them under the terms of the White Paper. The important consideration is to strike a balance between giving adequate incentive to get the work done and avoiding undue hardship to tenants.

Mr. John Fraser: Is the Minister aware that in Norwood there have been many tragic deaths as a result of inadequate conversion to multiple occupation and that the Bill to deal with multiple occupation, as well as other matters, cannot come soon enough?

Mr. Greenwood: I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that the proposals, when embodied in legislation, will at last bring multiple occupation under adequate control.

Ground Rents and Rent Charges

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will introduce legislation to abolish ground rents and rent charges.

Mr. MacColl: Existing legislation provides for the redemption of perpetual rent charges on freehold property on application to my right hon. Friend by the rent-payer. The Law Commission is examining the whole subject of rent charges and is in course of preparing a Working Paper, which will contain its provisional conclusions. These my right hon. Friend will study carefully. Existing legislation enables certain leaseholders to buy their freeholds. Householders can apply to my right hon. Friend for a separate apportionment of their share of a ground rent or rent charge to end the burden of collecting rents on neighbouring properties.

Mr. Davidson: Is my hon. Friend aware that his answer is moderately encouraging, but will he remember that many of us feel that the whole system of ground rents is feudal, archaic, thoroughly unnecessary and particularly hard on the people who have to pay and collect them? Since the Opposition did nothing about it when they were in office, can we not abolish it?

Mr. MacColl: The Minister and I share the same unfortunate legacy from the past and, as in all our reforms, we hope to undo it as quickly as we can.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Would my hon. Friend enfranchise leasehold flats as soon as possible, perhaps during the present Session?

Mr. MacColl: We will be very much occupied this Session with other, very important matters.

NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION

Mr. Gordon Campbell: asked the Prime Minister if he will take an opportunity of attending a meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have no plans to do so at present.

Mr. Campbell: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to members of N.A.T.O. whatever happened to his proposal for an Atlantic Nuclear Force? Will he also explain the continuing existence of the "so-called British, so-called nuclear so-called deterrent", which is now a major theme of the Government's recruiting advertisements?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member will know that the proposals for a multilateral force, which were accepted, I think, substantially by his own Government, have been successfully torpedoed over the last year or two, but our proposals for dealing with the collectivisation of the deterrent are, of course, still the subject of disagreement in N.A.T.O.

Mr. Park: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us on this side consider that the existence of both N.A.T.O.

and the Warsaw Pact makes a permanent and peaceful solution of European problems much more difficult? Will he announce his willingness to enter into discussions with representatives of both Alliances to secure their progressive dismantlement and their replacement with a European security system in which countries from both Western and Eastern Europe can join?

The Prime Minister: Obviously, any sane and civilised man looks forwards to a world in which there are no military blocs of this kind, but the way to reach that situation is not by unilaterally abandoning the Western Alliance. On the question of relations between the two pacts, my hon. Friend will be aware of the fairly lengthy section of the communiqué which I signed with Mr. Kosygin in 1967, but will, I am afraid, agree that recent events do not contribute to an early solution of the problems which we then set out.

HEADS OF EUROPEAN GOVERNMENTS (CONFERENCE)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Prime Minister if he will convene a conference of heads of European Governments, in accordance with the resolution passed at The Hague on 9th November, 1968, details of which have been sent to him, in order to further the cause of uniting Europe.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the Answers which I gave in reply to a Question from the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) on 28th November.—[Vol. 774, c. 722–4.]

Mr. Ridley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the continual stagnation in our application to join the Community is both weakening and demoralising? Will he not agree that the excellent conference at The Hague gives him an opportunity to take the initiative in breaking the deadlock?

The Prime Minister: I certainly join my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary in his welcome for the success of the conference at The Hague, in which I believe the hon. Member himself played a significant part, and also for the proposal referred to in the Question. But I think that the hon.


Gentleman will agree with the line taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State yesterday, when he said that progress must proceed by means of the next W.E.U. meeting.

Mr. Jay: Why did the Government, at the recent E.F.T.A. conference in Vienna, apparently turn down a proposal for freer trade between the E.E.C. and E.F.T.A., which seems to have been supported by all the other countries in those groups and which would surely have been a sensible step forward?

The Prime Minister: We did not turn down any proposal for freer trade between E.F.T.A. and the E.E.C.

Mr. Sandys: While recognising that much can be done within the W.E.U., may I ask the Prime Minister to consider the possibility of making contact with those other Governments which have publicly expressed themselves in favour of convening such a meeting of heads of Government, with a view to seeing how this can be furthered?

The Prime Minister: There is no difference between any of us on objectives here so far as a meeting of this kind is concerned, but, as the Foreign Secretary said when this was first raised, it is very important that, if there were such a meeting, it should be properly prepared and that we should be satisfied that it would lead to progress, rather than just, perhaps, to a reassertion of previously prepared and stated positions. The answer certainly lies first of all in the next W.E.U. meeting, in the proposals made by M. Harmel and, failing that, in seeing whether any progress can be made to what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As I understand the Resolution, it dealt with matters outside the Treaty of Rome. Is not the Prime Minister aware that there is quite a lot to be done in technology, which has already begun, and in the exchange of trade? Will he use his personal iniative in the matter?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will know the welcome we have given to the d'Estaing proposal, which involves the possibility of more co-operation in technology between members of the Six and countries which

are not members of the E.E.C. We have put forward our own proposals in this field, on the basis not so much of intergovernmental but inter-industrial cooperation, and we are pressing these questions all the time. But, apart from the d'Estaing proposals, there has been a consistent attitude as a result of which co-operation between the Six and outside countries, including ourselves, has been frustrated.

NIGERIA

Mr. Winnick: asked the Prime Minister what new steps he is considering in conjunction with the other Commonwealth Prime Ministers to try to end the Nigerian civil war.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing at present to add to what my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said in the House yesterday.

Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that very many of our constituents are so appalled by the suffering in the civil war that they would like to see a firm initiative by the major powers to secure a cease-fire? Will he try to secure agreement if possible with the other major powers, the United Nations, and the O.A.U., to get a Christmas ceasefire plus massive relief operations for the people so desperately in need?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be aware that one of the purposes of the visit of two members of Her Majesty's Government to Africa was to examine those very possibilities and to co-operate in an initiative to that end. My hon. Friend mentioned the O.A.U. He will know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs visited Addis Ababa for discussions with the Emperor of Ethiopia, and he will be aware of the very deep disappointment felt by us all in the House, as well as my our constituents, that so far progress has not been made on the lines we were pressing for. They involved a cease-fire and mounting a massive relief operation during the cease-fire period. This has so far been prevented and frustrated.

Dr. John Dunwoody: In view of the certainty of an unprecedented human disaster if the war continues, does not my right hon. Friend agree that he and other


Commonwealth Prime Ministers, when they meet in January would be justified in considering means to achieve a cease-fire which would ordinarily be ruled out of court?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right, and we know of the report which he brought back as a result of his visit to many of the areas affected, where, as he says, even greater dangers exist than we have so far faced. We certainly have very much in mind the question of how far progress could be made at the Commonwealth level, though an African solution is required, and we must not cut across the work of the O.A.U. too much. What we tried to do last week was welcomed by those who were trying to reach the same objectives in the O.A.U.

Mr. Heath: There have been reports today that the Federal Government have refused any sort of truce or cease-fire over Christmas. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether there is any substance in the reports? Will he clear up a point about Colonel Ojukwu which was not clear from the debate? I make no complaint about that. Has he refused to have daylight flights, or has he just not answered the invitation?

The Prime Minister: On the first part of the question, I should like to study the situation more and perhaps have a chance to give the right hon. Gentleman the answer later in the week. As he knows, my noble Friend Lord Shepherd is due to land in an hour or two and will be reporting to my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. We shall then know the most up-to-date position of the Federal Government who, to my knowledge, have been extremely co-operative in what we have been trying to achieve. We are studying the latest reports, but my information is that Colonel Ojukwu has not agreed to the daylight flights, still less to the use of the land corridor, which is the only thing now that can solve the problem of the massive shortage of carbohydrates, which presents the main danger.

SYNTHETIC AND SUBSTITUTE FOODSTUFFS

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister with overall responsibility for the sponsor-

ship of both the development and production of synthetic and substitute foodstuffs processed from natural, organic, and other sources; and what is now the Government's programme for bringing about import saving by this means.

The Prime Minister: These are matters which come within the field of responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Government recognise the potential importance of these forms of production, but they are still in the research and development stage, and it is too early to assess the possibilities of import saving.

Mr. Osborn: Is there not a need for mission-orientated research and development, and for interest such as has been shown by the United States?
Bearing in mind protein is extracted from wood, and the wood pulp industry in the Soviet Union, and will be manufactured by the petro chemical industry in the West, is not this better regarded as an industrial and technological activity, rather than that it should rest solely with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman, of whose interest in the matter I am well aware, understates what is going on in this country. Many commercial enterprises, such as the oil companies, are very active in working on the production of protein from natural oil and natural gas. Work has been going on for many years under the Agricultural Research Council at Rothamsted Experimental Station on the extraction of protein from plant materials. Related work is in progress at other A.R.C. Institutes, such as the Rowett Research Institute and the Hannah Dairy Research Institute. In addition, the Ministry's marine laboratories are studying the potentialities of the sea, and the Tropical Products Institute is also researching in this field. All this work is co-ordinated, but it is too early to say whether it will be of commercial value, and what help it can give not only to our import-saving problems but the relief of poverty and hunger throughout the world.

ZAMBIA AND TANZANIA (DEFENCE PACT)

Mr. Judd: asked the Prime Minister if he will submit proposals to the


Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference for a Commonwealth Defence Pact with Zambia and Tanzania.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Judd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the intransigence of the Smith and other racialist régimes in the area leads to increased emphasis on freedom fighting, which exposes Zambia and Tanzania? Is not such a pact therefore essential?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, and as I told him on 23rd July, these matters were discussed very fully with the President of Zambia when he was here, and we have already offered to arrange for a joint study of Zambia's defence requirements if the Zambian Goverment wish. We made it clear to President Kaunda that we would hope to be able to help him to obtain in Britain all the defence equipment Zambia requires, but I also made it clear to him, and he agreed, that it must be for Zambia to evaluate the danger as he sees it to the independence and integrity of his country, and to decide what priority he would wish to give to strengthening his defence position. We are prepared to help.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity of the Conference to make representations privately to Zambia and Tanzania that to harbour terrorists and allow them to cross the borders into Rhodesia does not contribute to the cause of peace in Africa?

The Prime Minister: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has perhaps missed some of the statements made on behalf of the Zambian Government, for example. I can speak only about them, because I have not recently met the President of Tanzania, though I hope shortly to do so. Those statements made it clear in the United Nations that Zambia was prepared to have the whole situation opened up to international inspection so that some of the charges made against the Zambian Government could be probed.

WORLD MONETARY CONFERENCE

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister if he will discuss the calling of a World Monetary Conference, similar to

that at Bretton Woods, with the President-Elect of the United States of America.

The Prime Minister: I look forward to early discussions with Mr. Nixon on a wide range of topics, but a world monetary conference without really adequate preparation through existing channels would not be appropriate or helpful at present.

Mr. Dalyell: Is not there an advantage in having a conference at which the central banker and finance Ministers of primary-producing and developing countries are present?

The Prime Minister: Work has been going on continuously through the appropriate United Nations machinery and the International Monetary Fund for this, since the days in office of the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling). Some progress has been made, but most of us are rather disappointed at the limited extent of the progress and the long delay. I have taken a big interest in these matters in the past, so I appreciate the point my hon. Friend raises. But it has not been possible so far to work out a scheme for increased world liquidity which gives a special premium to the requirements of the developing countries without putting them or the countries supplying what they need into balance of payments difficulties.

Mr. Thorpe: Does not the Prime Minister agree that the instability of the world monetary system is such that the crisis of last month could easily recur early in the New Year? Although Bretton Woods may have been appropriate at the time, should not the Government make one of their highest priorities devising new methods to sustain a world currency on a permanent basis?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the Bretton Woods agreement in the debate on 25th November, when he said that it had served the world reasonably well over the past generation but that the further we got from it the greater the need for change. Since this will require the agreement of other countries, and since we have not only through the I.M.F. but the Group of 10, the Committee of Three of the O.E.C.D. and in other ways, the means of adequate consultation, I am not certain that to rush


straight into a conference bearing slogans saying, "Bretton Woods must go" would be the most constructive way of dealing with the problem, which not just Britain but the whole world faces.

Mr. Sheldon: Since unanimity may be very difficult to achieve at present, would not a more limited means of co-operation perhaps be the answer, particularly such co-operation with the United States, like-minded continental countries and others? Does my right hon. Friend consider that such a conference might be useful in obtaining the kind of order in international finance that is required?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure that the last few words of what my hon. Friend said follow from what he said at the beginning, with which I agree. The unanimity provision was one of the reasons for the frustration of our hopes and those of many other countries, including the United States. But the Stockholm meeting of the Group of 10 last spring and further progress made not only in the I.M.F. but in, for example, the Basle Agreement and other developments since that time suggest that it has been possible, at a cost and with a delay, to meet even the attempt on the part of one or two countries to veto progress.

Mr. Turton: Does the Prime Minister's first reply mean that he will seek an early opportunity to discuss with the Presidentelect the problems of world finance and world trade?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, exactly as I have done with the present President of the United States. Obviously, at this stage I cannot say exactly what the coverage will be, but I think it inconceivable that it would be possible for two Heads of Government to meet without looking at the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Barnett: In view of what was clearly a disastrous conference at Bonn recently, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a need to do something fairly soon? Will he, perhaps, consider the possibility of having less rigidity in the whole procedure regarding exchange rates, and would he care to give the House, briefly perhaps, his views on the crawling peg?

The Prime Minister: Again, I find some difficulty in following the implied logic of the question. My hon. Friend must bear responsibility for calling the Bonn conference disastrous. I am not sure that it follows, if a conference of 10 was in his view disastrous, that a conference of 100 would necessarily present an easier opportunity to make substantial and rapid progress. We must work through the Group of 10 and in other ways to solve the problems facing the world. A great deal arises from an international problem of confidence, not a national problem. It arises also from the fact that over a period of time world liquidity has not increased pari passu with the increase in the volume in world trade. This is one reason why we have had these repeated upsets and flurries in the world currency market.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the existing channels to which he referred earlier have had at least 25 years' warning of constant crises, and is it not time that they injected a much stronger and higher sense of urgency into their deliberations?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir That was attempted by the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), it was attempted by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But for this sense of urgency, which both sides of the House have never failed to proclaim, to become productive there is required a similar sense of urgency and some agreement as to method among a large number of other countries. We have improved the facilities for international co-operation. For example, the speed with which the Washington conference was mounted last March at the time of the serious upset in the world gold market, the Basle Agreement and even the Bonn conference show a possibility of rapid action. I agree that more fundamental measures may be required, though I do not consider that they will be attained simply by injecting a sense of urgency. The whole world knows the urgency.

Several Hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

PETITION (ARGYLL AND SUTHERLAND HIGHLANDERS)

Mr. Speaker: I shall now hear two points of order, which the hon. Members concerned kindly postponed.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me an opportunity to raise on a point of order certain matters concerning Standing Orders, our rules of procedure and Erskine May with reference to the Petition presented to the House this afternoon by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger).
Standing Order No. 98 lays down that, after a Petition has been ordered to lie upon the Table, it must be referred to the Committee on Public Petitions. Rule of Procedure No. 95 states that the Committee on Public Petitions shall examine all public Petitions after they have been presented and make periodic reports to the House.
Erskine May, at page 855 of the 17th Edition, states, among other matters:
The reports of this committee"—
that is, the Committee on Public Petitions—
printed at intervals during the session, point out, not only the subject of each petition, but the number of signatures to which addresses are affixed, and which are written on sheets headed by the prayer of the petition, the general object of every petition, and the total number of petitions and the signatures in reference to each subject.
The counting and checking of signatures and addresses is, I understand, usually done by the clerk of the Committee, assisted by other clerks in the Journal Office, the Table Office and other offices of the House. I understand that those who perform this task receive some remuneration for their trouble based, I believe, on every 3,000 signatures counted. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr gives the total number of signatures on his Petition this afternoon as 1,086,590. Under our present rules, every one of those must be counted and rechecked.
Whatever may be the cost of doing that—I do not imagine that any of us would in any way resent our clerks receiving some remuneration for their trouble—the time factor must be of some importance here. To the best of my calculation, were 1,000 signatures to be counted and

checked by one clerk every day, including Sundays, the operation would take that one clerk 2¾ years to complete. I cannot believe that it would be the wish of the House that a clerk, possibly taking 24,090 man hours, should be occupied in deciding whether, for example, Mr. and Mrs. McTavish, of Cape Wrath, are the same Mr. and Mrs. McTavish, of the Mull of Kintyre.
I wonder, therefore, Mr. Speaker, whether you would advise the House on how best we might deal with this Petition. Might it be possible for the Leader of the House now to move that for the purposes of this Petition the Petitions Committee be relieved of the requirements of Rule of Procedure No. 95 read in conjunction with the passage in Erskine May which I cited, so that eventually the report might have to include not the number of signatures but only the number of separate sheets of signatures.
It would appear to me, Sir, that that would ensure that the time of our hard-worked clerks was not unduly overburdened by counting and checking over 1 million signatures on what must be a truly historic Petition.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am indebted to the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) for his observations, which, curiously enough, ran on lines parallel to my own view. I listened with great respect to the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), whose neighbour I am in Ayrshire. In Scotland, we all respect the name of Younger. He is a very popular Member in my constituency—more popular than I am, especially after certain times on Friday and Saturday night.
However, the hon. Gentleman's Petition brings a new problem. A total of 1,086,590 signatures is a very large number for the clerks to count, and there will be a large sum of money to ask the country to pay at a time when hon. Members opposite are calling for a reduction in public expenditure.
With this Petition there are certain difficulties which are not associated with any other Petition. As one who respects Parliament and the rights of Parliament and the rights of hon. Members to petition Parliament, I regard the tradition of petition with great respect, and I do not think that we should do anything to


diminish the respect in which this historic custom is held.
However, questions have been asked about this Petition and, without wishing to discuss them, I think that there are certain matters which will impose additional burdens on the members of the Committee. For example, I have been asked how many of the signatures are those of women and children under 16. I have been asked whether foreign subjects visiting Scotland have had the opportunity to sign. I have been asked—and I am not expressing any opinion—whether it is true that large numbers of foreign subjects, who have not understood the issue, but who have been part of the large tourist traffic which comes to Scotland, to the Edinburgh Festival, going on to the Highlands and to Stirling Castle, have added their names. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely that, if it is possible, we should check the address of every signatory.
I have one final illustration. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration said that on a recent visit to Katmandu he had seen an appeal to sign the Petition. For the benefit of hon. Members who do not know where Katmandu is, I should say that it is not in Argyllshire, nor in Sutherlandshire. Here was an attempt to raise signatures in a country in which a large number of people understand only Chinese. Will any scrutiny be made of whether the inhabitants of Nepal have had the Petition translated into their native language before it was presented to them?
I have said enough to show that, if it is possible without adding to public expenditure, about which I am very much concerned, along with the Leader of the Opposition, there should be at least a sample scrutiny to find out whether any foreign subjects have signed the Petition, whether it has been circulated in a foreign language and whether women and children have signed it.
Finally, I want to ask about the destination of the Petition. What is to happen to this huge pile of documents which the officers of the House brought to the Chamber? I suggest that it should be sent to the Ministry of Defence so that an invitation may be sent to bona

fide signatories to join any Scottish ré giment they choose.

Several Hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that we have much business ahead.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: On a point of order. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) asked whether foreigners had signed the petition. No doubt that will be looked into. The hon. Gentleman said that yesterday the Minister of Defence for Administration said that he had seen the petition in Katmandu, but that is not what the Minister said. The right hon. Gentleman said that on his visit to where the Gurkhas come from he had seen on a vehicle a sticker saying, "Save the Argylls". The hon. Gentleman was, therefore, entirely incorrect. To those who know that the Gurkhas are fine troops it is no surprise that in the land of the Gurkhas there should be recognition—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not talking about posters in Katmandu; we are talking about petitions.

Mr. Campbell: The question was whether foreigners had signed the Petition. It may well be that no subject of Nepal has signed the Petition, but, none the less, the Gurkhas, who are a fine regiment, would recognise the qualities of another fine regiment and would wish to show support for it.

Mr. Arthur Woodburn: On a point of order. This is a rather more serious point. Is there any way of protecting the dignity of the House from propaganda stunts of this kind? [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame. Withdraw."] Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that this Petition asks the Government to withdraw from the colonels of the Scottish Regiments the right to dispose of the Scottish regiments as they think best? Would it not be very bad for the House to appear to be removing from Scotland a right to settle its affairs in Scotland?

Mr. Speaker: We cannot drift into arguing the merits of the Petition.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. Is there a Motion


before the House? I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) had put a point of order to you, Mr. Speaker, and I was wondering whether there was to be a ruling.

Mr. Speaker: The Chair would be able to deal with the point of order if hon. Members, like the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), did not ask other points of order.

Mr. Roy Roebuck: On a point of order. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) said that he had been asked a number of questions about this Petition. I think that there should be the most rigorous inspection of the names, for I have been asked a question. I have been asked by students of the Sunday Press whether this was a Petition to save the Duke and Duchess of Argyll and it may be that a number of people have signed the petition under a misapprehension.
Moreover, can you say, Mr. Speaker, whether there is any possibility of the Committee which will examine the Petition calling before it a number of persons who are supposed to have signed the Petition to examine them on the circumstances in which they signed it and what was said to them before they signed it?

Mr. Speaker: May I first say that a Petition to the House of Commons does not upset the dignity of the House of Commons. We are dealing with an unusual problem, because this Petition is particularly large. One hon. Member wants to reduce the work of the staff in examining the Petition and another hon. Member wants to add to the work of the staff by increasing the matters which the Committee would examine.
I must deal simply with the point of order. It is not within my power to direct that signatures need not be counted, because the House ordered, when setting up the Committee on Public Peti-

tions, that the report of the Committee should set forth in respect of each Petition the number of signatures which are accompanied by addresses. The office clerks examining the Petitions have, therefore, to satisfy themselves that each signature appears to be a valid signature with an address; otherwise, it is not counted.
It is not unusual to find names attached to a Petition which are clearly not genuine signatures, or which are not accompanied by addresses. An order to report the number of signatures has been included in the Committee's order of reference ever since the Committee was first appointed in 1833. The number has to be officially verified, as it has been found in the past that the number is sometimes over-estimated by those who prepare the Petition.
The Committee on Public Petitions will examine the Petition and no doubt hon. Members who are members of the Committee will note the observations made.

PERSONAL STATEMENT

Mr. Speaker: I wish to make a brief personal statement.
Yesterday, at column 899 in the OFFICIAL REPORT, I said:
… this Speaker is the most jealous protector of minorities for very many years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1968; Vol. 775, c. 899.]
This was an unfortunate remark. It could be taken as a reflection on previous Speakers and their treatment of minorities. The fact is that every Speaker for many years now has been the jealous protector of minorities in this House, and the present Speaker, no more and no less than his predecessors. This is not a virtue but a simple duty. Moreover the House itself, equally with Mr. Speaker, is the protector of the rights of minorities.
I hope that the House will accept my sincere regret for having made yesterday an ill-considered comment.

ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising on Friday, do adjourn till Monday, 20th January.—[Mr. Peart.]

2 p.m.

Mr. Neil Marten: I rise to oppose this Motion on a fairly small geographical matter. Passing from Katmandu and Oban out to the Caribbean, I want to say a word about the Island of Anguilla, which has threatened to declare itself independent outside the Commonwealth on 8th January. I oppose this Motion, because, before the House rises, perhaps next Monday, we should have an opportunity in this House to debate this important matter. As the House knows this is a small island, but none the less the principles involved are of grave concern to other islands. It is an island of only 6,000 inhabitants—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he cannot debate now what he would wish to debate if we accede to his request and come back earlier, or stay later.

Mr. Marten: I realise that, Sir. I was explaining, for the benefit of those hon. Members who are unaware of the problem, that this island was given Associated Status in 1967 and that in June, 1967 it unofficially broke away from that associated status. Since then we have had a holding situation, thanks to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher), the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) as well as an official of the Commonwealth Office, who has been there acting as administrator.
In October of this year the leader of the island came here for talks with the Government, together with Mr. Brad-shaw, Prime Minister of the Island of St. Kitts. It was because of Mr. Brad-shaw's behaviour that the Island of Anguilla declared itself independent of St. Kitts. Those talks took place, but no agreement was reached, and the two leaders went back to their islands, with the brief of trying to get together and work out an extension of the posting of this Commonwealth Office administrator. Unfortunately, these talks have broken down and we have heard through

the Press that Mr. Webster the leader of Anguilla has decided that on 8th January, that is the day when the term of office of this Commonwealth Office official expires, he will declare independence not only of St. Kitts, but also of the Commonwealth.
It is wrong that we should rise before the House has had the opportunity to debate this matter. I would withdraw my objection to this if I could have an assurance from the Leader of the House that a Minister from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will go out there post haste to talk this situation over with the two leaders before 8th January. If someone went there and made proposals to the islanders—perhaps that they should come temporarily within the administration of the British Virgin Islands, or prolong the stay of Mr. Lee the administrator, or some special membership of the Commonwealth—a solution might be found and wiser counsels will prevail upon the leaders of the island not to declare independence.
I will willingly withdraw my opposition if I could have the assurance of the Leader of the House that a Minister would go out there during the Christmas Recess, before 8th January, to deal with this question.

3.55 p.m.

Sir John Rodgers: I would like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). Nothing could be more disastrous for those of us who have the interest of Anguila at heart than a U.D.I. on 8th January. I would urge the Government to look with favour at the suggestion that a Minister might be sent out before this date, either to prolong Mr. Lee's stay or put other proposals. If a Minister is not available, perhaps a deputation of hon. Members from both sides of the House could go out quickly and report to the Government.

3.56 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I oppose this Motion very strongly, mainly on behalf of my constituents. The people who elected me to Parliament do not understand, at a time when the nation is visibly in peril financially—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and when there is a danger to our security, why the House of Commons, in which


they repose their confidence and trust, should disappear from the national scene until the last week of January. My constituents, and, I imagine, those of many of my hon. Friends, believe that it would be a dereliction of duty if those whom they have elected to represent them were to remove themselves from the possibility of debating such issues.
If Parliament disappears now until 20th January it will sap the confidence of many of my constituents in the rô le of Parliament. I would like to tell the Leader of the House of some of the things my constituents feel the house ought to be doing instead of taking a holiday. We ought to be debating the state of the economy, which everyone knows is in an extremely bad way. The people in my area know that there will be more unemployment—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman says that we ought to debate the state of the economy. He can do that only if he gets back earlier. He cannot do it now. He can list what he would like to debate, but he cannot debate now any of those things.

Mr. Griffiths: Perhaps I can list the things that I think should be debated. We certainly ought to be debating, before 20th January, the unemployment, which is rising, in West Suffolk. We ought to be debating, before 20th January, the falling private investment, which has handicapped the overspill programme in my constituency. We ought to be debating the problems that the local authorities face in having to make do with a 3½ per cent. increase when new schools and roads are badly needed. Those are the problems that the House should be dealing with and people do not understand why at this time it should be away until 20th January.
Against this background, more and more people are coming to the conclusion which all hon. Members will regret, that Parliament is no longer responsive to the things that matter to them. They are concluding that the House of Commons seems not to care about their local affairs.
Another reason the House should come back earlier, for that is what I ask, is that the people I represent look to the House not only as the protector of their local interests, but as the guardian of the nation. My

constituents are extremely worried about the state of the nation. They feel that we should be debating the growing burden of international debt. They are worried that we owe more to the United States today than we did when we first borrowed money from the Americans in 1946. They are worried about, and feel that the House should be debating, the jeopardy of the £ sterling, and the security of our island.
If Parliament is to mean anything, it should be considering, during the difficult and dangerous weeks that lie ahead, the fact that the security of our island is being put at risk because we see our alliances crumbling, the relationship with the United States not what it was, the old Commonwealth ties being severed, and we are not yet in Europe. People feel that the House, rather than going into recess, ought to be here, debating a situation in which we may soon find ourselves, without the old Commonwealth, without the Anglo-American special relationship and not yet in Europe.
This growing sense among our constituents of their potential isolation in the world leads them to conclude that Parliament should be sitting, dealing with the business of the nation, and that hon. Members should not be sent home to their constituencies to allow the Government to get on with the business, which business my constituents no longer have confidence in the Government's capacity to manage. If Parliament is to leave Westminster from 20th December to 20th January, we are putting at risk the confidence that our constituents feel in this institution. There is not simply an economic crisis, there is an institutional crisis, and I suggest to the Leader of the House that he is putting at risk the prime institution, namely, the House of Commons, if at this time he dismisses it, when ordinary people feel that it should be here debating their problems.
I do not ask that we should give up our Christmas Recess, heaven forfend; I suggest only that when day by day hon. Members ask for a little more time to debate a Bill, when in the great debates on foreign policy or economic affairs so many are not able to get in, it is wrong that the House should be dismissed for so long a period. My plea is: can we not contemplate coming back at least a week earlier to deal with the affairs of the country that I, for one, have no


confidence in the Government's ability to manage in our absence?

Several Hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Speaker: Order. As I gaze round and see the number of hon. Members rising I would remind the House that, if hon. Members will look at the Order Paper they will see that we have a massive amount of business today. Brief contributions will be welcome.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: I oppose the Motion for a number of reasons. I suggest to the Leader of the House that the House of Commons should reassemble, say, at the end of the first week in January, so that we can have a report from the Government that they have not made an intolerable mess of things in the interval and, in particular, a report on one or two matters which I shall mention briefly.
First, the matter of the Falkland Islands has never yet been cleared up. The Government's intentions have never been fully revealed. I suggest that they should be revealed fully, if not now, at least on such an occasion as I have just mentioned. There is a good deal of anxiety to know from the Government, before we rise, if possible—and perhaps the Leader of the House will be good enough to convey this to his right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary for Defence—to what extent, if at all, a possible negotiation with Argentina for the sale of warships is bound up with negotiations over the future of the Falkland Islands. Apparently, it was bound up previously with the decision to raise the ban on the import of meat from the Argentine. I see from the expression on his face that the Leader of the House is already acquainted with this matter, and I hope that he will convey to his colleagues our fears that the Government, once again, are up to their necks in some rather dirty work.
There is another matter which I hope will receive fair consideration from the Leader of the House. He may be aware from his previous tenancy in the Ministry of Agriculture that this country is bung full of stocks of foreign cheese imported at throw-away prices. This pile-up of stocks is creating great anxiety among

many of my constituents and in the dairy industry. In fairness, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture was good enough to see a deputation of some of my hon. Friends and myself the other day at the Ministry—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, the hon. Member is tempting himself. He must not debate cheese. He may ask for an opportunity to debate it.

Mr. Peyton: There can be no debate on this subject; I know of no argument that the Minister could put against me. I am not attempting to debate it; I am seeking to persuade the Leader of the House that the anxieties of the industry need attention from the Government in the near future. The industry will not be pleased to hear that the House of Commons, which anxiously awaits a report on the matter, is to rise for so long a period.
Then there is the matter of the negotiations on North Sea gas. Again and again uncomfortable announcements are made just after the House rises. I would like to have a general undertaking from the Leader of the House that there will be no nasty announcements immediately after we rise, as a Christmas present for the ever tolerant public. We would like to know whether an announcement will be made on North Sea gas, which has been long postponed and badly handled by the present Administration. If not, perhaps the Recess should be postponed.
My last point is that before we rise the Prime Minister ought to be given a chance to state specifically in the House the charges that he has made against rumour-mongers. One or two citizens were so ill-advised as to allow their hopes to run away with them in believing that the Government might resign, confessing their shame and their failure. Will the Leader of the House clear up this matter before we rise? Is it in future to be a criminal offence, or is it to be stigmatised as unpatriotic, to say that the Government cannot remain in office?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is drifting into the speech which he would be in order in making if he got the day to make it.

Mr. Peyton: I give you the absolute assurance, Mr. Speaker, that it would take a long time and that I would not


dream of attempting to trespass on your patience so far. I merely ask the Leader of the House whether, before we rise, he will give a clear undertaking to the country that in voicing even ill-founded hopes they will not be stigmatised as unpatriotic.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Albert Booth: I am opposed to the House rising on 20th December for the Christmas Recess unless the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity tells us that she will intervene in the debate at Vickers (Barrow) or gives us a proper reason for not doing so. This dispute has deprived over 3,000 men of employment. It has lasted for over six months and has caused a great deal of hardship in the town of Barrow and the surrounding area.
I first wrote to the Secretary of State on this matter on 10th July. In my letter I pointed out that complete deadlock had been reached and that the intervention of her Department was necessary to achieve a solution. This was a view shared by the A.E.F., the principal union involved in the dispute at that time. I received a reply on 1st August which stated that there was no basis on which joint talks could take place under the chairmanship of a member of the Department of Employment and Productivity. This attitude has been maintained by the Minister and her Department since that date.
During the period which transpired between my writing that letter—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot debate what he wants to debate. He wants the House not to go into recess so that it might debate the intervention of the Minister in the dispute. He can ask for that, but he cannot give details.

Mr. Booth: As always, I accept what you say, Mr. Speaker.
I was dealing with the subject which I wished to be debated should a debate be allowed. Among the issues which I would want to be debated are the expansion of this dispute from the time that it started and matters of demarcation about which the firm chose, against the normal practice of the industry, to place certain—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going into the merits of what he is seeking to have debated.

Mr. Booth: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, as always.
As a result of this dispute, men are without entitlement to unemployment or social security benefit. They are denied by the provisions of the National Insurance Act of any income. The Minister should indicate a willingness to make a statement to the House. If she does not do so, a situation of dispute and enmity will continue to obtain throughout my constituency during the Christmas period instead of one of peace and good will.

4.13 p.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I was almost convinced by my hon. Friends that we should not accept the Motion. They gave very good reasons for not accepting it. However, on balance, I think that we should accept it and that we should go into recess.
I wonder whether a month will be long enough. Perhaps it should be a bit longer. The Government are punch drunk. They are deteriorating and almost disintegrating before our eyes. Apart from all the great issues on which the Government legislate, there are many administrative problems with which they should deal. If there were any chance that the Government would change their attitude and would pay some attention to Parliament's advice, I would join my hon. Friends because Parliament would be carrying out its function of trying to keep the Government in order. But the Government are nervous. They are almost tumbling apart because of their lack of control, for reasons which I cannot understand. The only thing which might revive them is a rest from having to face the truth and being shown how disastrous are their assessments of the situation.
It is in the nation's interest that we agree to the Motion. Unless the Government are recovered on 20th January, we should perhaps extend the Recess for another week or fortnight. I do not think that the people will be robbed of our advice. The Government pay attention only to what is said on television. They do not pay attention to what goes on in the House or in our Committees. Mr. Speaker's Conference made very sensible recommendations


about what we should do, but the Government completely disregarded them and introduced something which was completely opposite to those recommendations.
The Government are so nervous and out of touch that we should give them a chance to recover. They are on the point of disintegrating and they are punch drunk from the truth. A month might be sufficient, but perhaps we should extend the Recess because, if Parliament is not sitting, the Government cannot introduce as much legislation. The legislation which they have introduced over the last three or four years has been disastrous for the nation. It might be poetic justice if we were to put them out of business legislatively for perhaps a month or even more.
If Parliament, which includes back benchers on the Government as well as the Opposition side, could unseat the Government, it would be worth coming back to do that. But there is no chance of the Government back benchers doing that. They rip and roar and prove how disastrous the Government are, but they never go into the Lobby to do something about it, which would do some good for the nation. Parliament is not in such a situation that it could make good use of the time which we would be giving ourselves if the Recess were reduced.
Let the Government have their rest. Let us hope that they recover their nerve and make a better assessment of the situation. I hope that when we return from the Recess the position will be marginally better; and if it is only marginally better, it will be an improvement on the disastrous situation which we have had for the last four years. However, I am not optimistic.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. Frank Hooley: I beg leave to doubt whether the House should go into recess for 31 days while the situation in the Middle East is so disastrous and unstable. There is a grisly irony in the fact that the House will be taking what is called its Christmas Recess at a time when Palestine, which is the historic home of the Christmas festival, is torn by murder and strife, and no one can foresee the end to the conflict which has been going on there for 20 years.
The House has a great reputation for concern with peoples who are persecuted or in trouble or difficulty as a result of conflicts not of their own making. I am sure that the House would be willing to express its concern by returning a day or two days earlier than the date in the Motion to discuss the plight of the Palestinians who live as homeless and destitute refugees in the Jordan Valley. I am sure that it would be willing to give up a day or half a day to consider the physical conditions of men and women and new-born babies huddled in tents on the bare plateau in the neighbourhood of Amman. It would do this the more readily if it had seen, as I have seen, the conditions in which these people are living.
Thirty-one days is all too long for us to absent our thoughts and discussions from a matter which not only concerns bitter human distress, but may imperil the peace of the world. It would be out of order if I were to elaborate the way in which world peace might be endangered by a renewal of the conflict in that part of the world. But I should like an assurance that, if the uneasy truce—it is scarcely a truce—along the line of the River Jordan were to flare again into open conflict on either side, the Government would see fit to recall the House before 20th January to debate, at length if necessary, and in depth, the problems facing that part of the world.
I do not know whether there are today any shepherds on the hills of Judea, but if there are they will not be expecting to see angels, but murder and death, in the skies above. This is a situation to which I am sure that the House is not inclined to be indifferent, and I would welcome a categoric assurance that if death and destruction break out in the Jordan Valley again within the 31 days which we have set aside for relief from the formal business of Parliament, the House will be recalled as a matter of urgency and the situation will be fully debated.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: I wish briefly to seek an assurance from the Leader of the House before we agree to the Motion. During business questions last Thursday, I asked whether there was any possibility of the Minister of Transport making a statement before


we rose for the Christmas Recess about the Edinburgh-Hawick-Carlisle railway line following publication of the independent report by a transport consultant, who was supported by all the local authorities in the area. My anxiety in the matter is based on the fact that it is proposed that passenger services be withdrawn on 6th January, which falls during the proposed Recess.
On Thursday, the Leader of the House expressed great sympathy and said that he would have a word with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. I have had no indication since then. Following publication of the independent report, I sent to the Leader of the House various Press cuttings to let him see how sympathetically the report was received in Scotland, in particular, drawing his attention to the main finding of the report that
It cannot be said that the Minister's case for ruling out the retention of the line north of Hawick stands on the evidence available.
My reason for asking that the Minister of Transport should make a statement to the House is that the report suggested that there should be a stay of execution of the withdrawal of services from 6th January until about April, when the freight services will continue in any event. I want to know whether the Minister, having had time to read the report, will tell us before we rise for the Recess whether he will agree to that stay of execution.
The significance of this is that the unanimous view of all the experts and bodies available in Scotland has been that the Minister should look at this matter again. The Leader of the House will be aware that even the Church and Nation Committee of the Church of Scotland—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is sliding gracefully into a debate, from which he must slide out.

Mr. Steel: I shall attempt equally gracefully, Mr. Speaker, to slide out of the debate and merely repeat that so many bodies have given the unanimous view that this is an important matter and that the Minister should pronounce upon it.
My reason for asking particularly for the Minister of Transport to come to the House before we rise for the Recess is

that I have today received a letter from the Chairman of the Scottish Railway Board, who states:
I must make it clear that unless I am instructed otherwise, the passenger service will be withdrawn on 6th January as arranged. Any deviation from this could, I think, only arise if the Minister decided to give it a grant aid for the period of three months suggested in the report.
It is right and proper that I should seek that assurance before the House rises on Friday.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: As you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. Members on both sides are well aware, this is what we call a silly Recess debate. It takes place before every Recess, whether Christmas, Easter or Whitsun. Hon. Members, on both sides, give reasons why the House should not go into Recess, never debating their subjects but merely mentioning them in passing, because every hon. Member has probably made, if not complete, at least some, arrangements for being away during the Recess.

Mr. Michael Jopling: If the hon. Member says that this is a silly debate, may I remind him that a year or 18 months ago he harangued us for over 20 minutes in one of these same debates?

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Member does not listen; I did not say that. I said that this was the silly season of Recess debates and I explained why. I was going on to say that we raise a number of issues which, we feel, should be debated without going into the reasons.
I want to make a suggestion which, I realise, will not be popular with you, Mr. Speaker. I do not think that it would be popular with the Government and I am sure that it would not be popular with the officials of the House. Knowing, however, that it is the custom on each Thursday for hon. Members, on both sides, to ask for time for debates, which the Government always refuse, I wonder whether it might be possible for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to consider a system whereby, say, those who want genuinely to come back a week earlier can do so for a series of Adjournment debates. On that basis, there would be no voting and no decisions would be taken. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Obviously, they would be Adjournment


debates, on which there are no votes. It might then be possible for a number of hon. Members genuinely and sincerely to raise burning topics which, they feel, should be discussed.
That might also give me the opportunity of raising a number of issues which I would like to mention. The first is the growing practice, under all Governments, past and present, for Ministers deliberately to evade giving Answers to Questions when the information is easily and readily available. I have raised a number of matters with the Ministers concerned, but without any satisfaction. I have now raised the matter with the Prime Minister and I am not at all sanguine that I shall get any results there. It is, however, true that on both sides, and under both Governments, one finds this happening.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to ask the Prime Minister and the Treasury that when an hon. Member puts down a Question asking for information which is readily available, the hon. Member should be given that information.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member can argue that to bring us back earlier would enable Ministers to answer Questions in a better way.

Mr. Lewis: I was doing it the other way round, Mr. Speaker, and suggesting that perhaps we should go into recess a week later. I could then put down my Question, in the meantime the Minister could have a word with the Department and probably, for once, I might get the answer. I bow to your suggestion, however, Mr. Speaker, of coming back perhaps a week earlier. It does not matter whether we go a week later or come back a week earlier.
Unfortunately, over the past few months, I have found that the Government continually adopt the ideas and suggestions that the Tories want and their banker friends demand, and periodically the ideas and suggestions are brought in. A strong rumour is going round that the Government have agreed with the International Monetary Fund and the bankers to introduce big Government expenditure cuts in social services which are to be announced during the Recess. I hope that this is incorrect.
That is one of the reasons why I would like us to go a week later or return a week earlier. I hope that we get a complete denial from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that such an announcement will not be made during the Recess, or that, if it is to be made, he will ensure that the House will be recalled so that the announcement can be made in the House.
That leads to the next point which I would like to have debated if we came back a week earlier or went a week later. I refer to the whole basis of the prices and incomes policy, which is phoney. We can never have proper discussion of it. If we came back a week earlier, one of the subjects which I would like to discuss, and which, perhaps, the Minister could arrange to have debated, is why references can be made to the Prices and Incomes Board for all industrial workers, but the Minister refuses to put to the Board questions concerning the increased salaries of directors of public companies. The pay of building workers is frozen—and I am not arguing the merits of the case—but if the chairman of a board gets an extra £5,000 a year—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That would make a good beginning to a speech which the hon. Gentleman could make in a debate if we came back earlier.

Mr. Lewis: If I were to do that I should have to go into detail, and I should not want to do that, because that would be out of order. I am merely mentioning in passing that if the chairman of a board gets an increase of £5,000 a year nothing is done about it. I asked my right hon. Friend why this matter was not referred to the Prices and Incomes Board. I have given her notice of about 12 such cases, but my right hon. Friend does not do—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must come back to the subject we are debating.

Mr. Lewis: I agree that I should have to go into detail. I think that I had better leave that there, because it does not appear that we shall come back a week early, or break up a week later, than is planned.
I think that we should debate the growing practice of the police raiding people's homes and taking liberties with the subject—[Laughter.] This is not a laughing


matter. Hon. Gentlemen opposite perhaps read the details of the police having raided a home and found a lady in bed in her nightdress. I think that it will be understood that my words were not ill-chosen. We tend to laugh at these things, but no one knows what happens when the police raid someone's house. Only last week the police forcibly entered an ordinary working class home in my constituency, and, not for the first time, refused to show a warrant to support their action. I asked for an investigation. The House is going into recess next week, and I have at last discovered that the investigation for which I have asked will be carried out by the police. I do not think that that is fair and proper.
To deal with that kind of thing the Ombudsman's powers should be widened. We could well debate this matter if we had a little more time at our disposal. Alternatively, perhaps an independent inquiry could be set up to investigate such incidents. This is not a question of one isolated incident. There have been about a dozen cases in the Metropolitan Police area of the police tending to take liberties with the electorate. I shall not go into detail, because to do so would be out of order.
There is an important Motion on the Order Paper. I have not signed the Motion, so my only interest lies in the possibility of tabling an Amendment to it. It castigates the Chairman of the National Coal Board. This is an important Motion, which ought to be debated, because it is tragic that a man like Lord Robens, an ex-Labour Minister, having been appointed by the Tories, should be attacked in this way. In our discussion we might include the fact that the Labour Government have appointed an ex-Tory Minister, Lord Hill, to an important post. These two men are doing a good job, and now they are being attacked without any chance to speak for themselves, and without anyone here having an opportunity to speak for them.
There is a much more important matter at stake. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will listen for a moment.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I am listening.

Mr. Lewis: I thank my right hon. Friend. I think that he is the only person who can confirm what I have heard. I have only the Press reports to go on, and one cannot always believe what one reads in the Press, but I have heard, and I am told, and I have read, that last week there was a conference at Chequers. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is a rumour."] I am told, too, that there were some leaks. I do not know whether they were official, but something has come out about a 3½ per cent. growth, and the T.U.C. having supported this idea. I now hear that the T.U.C. has denied doing any such thing. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is telling the Leader of the House to confirm that such a conference was held.
We regularly hear of non-elected representatives being called to Chequers to draw up policies and programmes which are in direct conflict with the aims and policies of the Labour Party, which put the Government into power. Indeed, such programmes are more in line with the policies of the Tory Party, yet none of my hon. Friends, or those connected with the elected representatives of the people, are invited to discuss these matters, or, indeed, know anything about them.
What often happens is that after such an event we are presented with a White Paper. That is followed by the Government's proposals, and we are then told that the Government expect us to support them. We ought to debate these issues before there is this kind of conference. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will confirm that there was such a conference, and that there was the kind of discussion to which I have referred.
It is amazing how often rumours turn out to be true. An exception, of course, was the rumour that was started the week before last. I am told that everything is already laid on, and that there is in being an independent national incomes board, lorded over by an ex-Tory Minister, and appointed to it are people on whom the Government can rely. It has been suggested that this body might investigate the salaries of the chairmen of nationalised industries. I am told that this proposal has been leaked to see how it will go down with all concerned. I am told that the idea is to put the salaries up to £15,000.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite call for cuts in Government expenditure. I expect that when the issue to which I have just referred comes to be considered there will be the usual agreement between the usual channels. It will mean that Ministerial salaries will have to be adjusted. If that happens, the salaries of backbenchers, too, will have to be adjusted, but the Government will still tell building workers that they have to put up with an increase of 3½ per cent. I do not want to go into this in detail, but we could discuss it at length if we were to come back a week earlier, or go away a week later.
The General Council of the T.U.C. is very annoyed because it has been accused of agreeing to things to which it has not agreed. Perhaps by the end of the week we shall know the truth of what went on at Chequers, but by then it will be too late to debate the issue. I shall not then be able to ask for a debate. I have to ask for it now, and to suggest that we break up a week later or come back a week earlier so that we can discuss this matter.
Another topic which is causing concern is the situation in Northern Ireland. Has the Prime Minister told the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland that he ought to adopt a more democratic approach? Was it my right hon. Friend who succeeded in bringing about the change that we have seen? If it was, I want to be the first person next week to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and to congratulate him on his efforts. If the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland has done this of his own volition, I might pay tribute to him.
I ask the Government seriously to consider the possibility of having a number of Adjournment debates similar to those on the last day of term, to start a week earlier than it is proposed to return, so that those hon. Members who genuinely wish to debate various issues will have an opportunity of drawing the attention of the public and the Government to the various matters which they feel should be discussed at length.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Esmond Wright: I oppose the Motion for one reason in addition to those which have already been mentioned. It is that by

20th January about 1,200 qualified teachers in Scotland will be dismissed from their posts. It is imperative, therefore, that we should hear from the Leader of the House or, better still, from the Secretary of State for Scotland, what are the Government's intentions towards the implementation of the recommendations of the General Teaching Council.
I will not go into the details of the matter, except to stress that if 1,200 teachers are dismissed, about 40,000 children's careers will be at risk, and a great many of them will be taking their O and H level examinations in the coming spring and early summer. The majority of these teachers are extremely experienced and are teaching physics and maths not only in Glasgow, but throughout Scotland in schools which are already short of staff. I need not add that already in Glasgow about 3,000 children are receiving part-time education.
Before 20th January, 61 teachers in Edinburgh will have been dismissed, as will five in Caithness and Sutherland. Over Scotland as a whole a Sword of Damocles is poised, ready to fall in the early and middle weeks of January. It is imperative, therefore, that before we rise on Friday we should have the Secretary of State's views in respect of the G.T.C.
This matter goes beyond the 1,200 teachers concerned. I will give an example of this from what is happening in my constituency, Shawlands Academy has a staff of 75, of whom 28 are under threat of dismissal. Two of them are deputy headmasters. Are we seriously asking the remaining 50 teachers to try to do the work of the 28 staff who will be dismissed? There is a danger that the rest of the staff will be forced to go on sympathetic strike in support of the teachers who will be dismissed, even if they do not choose to do so.
I ask the Leader of the House to obtain an assurance from the Secretary of State long in advance of 20th January about the Secretary of State's intentions concerning the G.T.C. I urge him to ask for the suspension of the regulations until the subject is clarified and to look with sympathy at the point raised by at least one of the educational associations, which is that of the 44 councillors on the G.T.C, only eight are truly representative of the teaching profession.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Gentleman is going too far into the details of this matter.

Mr. Wright: I am attempting to headline the main issues which, long before 20th January, require clarification.
I urge the Leader of the House, who was once a teacher, and the Secretary of State, who is also an ex-teacher, to think of the interests not only of the teaching profession in Scotland, but of the children whose future is at risk. I hope that they will suspend the regulations.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Richard: I have not taken part in a debate of this kind during the four years in which I have been in the House. It is the sort of debate in which a large number of hon. Members rise, sometimes in good humour, to raise constituency points. Certainly, I cannot recall hearing the debate deviate into one of seriousness. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] That is my view. However, on this occasion the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) seemed to be taking the Motion seriously.
As I listened to the hon. Gentleman with great attention, as I always do, his speech became waspish in tone and malicious in intention. He claimed that the bogs of West Suffolk and the back streets of Barons Court were full of people concerned about Parliament rising for a month. "Parliament is adjourning and the Falklands are in danger", was the sentiment on the lips of thousands of people throughout the country. "We should not accept this. Parliament should not rise until this and other important matters have been settled", he gave us the impression they are all saying.
I wondered whether, in view of the seriousness of all these things, the hon. Gentleman intended to go on to demand that Parliament should sit on Christmas Day and Boxing Day and certainly on 1st January. But he suggested nothing of the sort. Instead, he recommended that we should return a week earlier, namely, on 13th January. We see, therefore, that the urgency of all the matters which he raised is not so great to demand our attention over Christmas, since he requires us to

return only a week earlier than we intend to return.
What nonsense this all is. If one is to take the Motion seriously, one must accept that the nation needs a period of comparative peace and quiet. Frankly, there is nothing that so irritates the people of Bury St. Edmunds and the constituents of most of us than to read about hon. Member on both sides squabbling like alley cats over what is supposed to be wrong with our national life. Continual temperature-taking of the economy can do nothing but harm and I therefore propose not to join the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds in the Lobby in his burning desire to have the national navel exposed for the next few weeks.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I am in the happy position of being able to disagree with everything that was said by the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard). His speech was neither funny nor serious. Indeed, I cannot think why he bothered to contribute to the debate.
The Leader of the House must accept, after the serious speeches that have been made, that there are many good reasons why we should not recess for as long as he is proposing. In any event, it is a week longer than we normally have for the Christmas Recess. It is certainly much longer than we should have in view of the various issues, both constituency and national, which need further consideration.
I wish to raise a number of topics and to explain why we should not recess for the length of time proposed. The first is the question of agriculture. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) mentioned the import of cheese and dairy products. While I will not labour the point, I trust that the Leader of the House, who is familiar with this subject, will do his best to get his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make an announcement on this issue at the first possible moment. We cannot afford to wait until 20th January to hear the right hon. Gentleman's decision.
On another agricultural topic, we have been told by the Minister of Agriculture on several occasions that he would be making a statement about the Egg


Marketing Board at the beginning of December. That statement has so far not been made and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be given an opportunity to make it before Christmas, although I doubt whether that will happen. If not, I sincerely hope that the Leader of the House will, when replying to this debate, give an assurance that his right hon. Friend will make a statement at a very early date. If he cannot give that assurance, we should not allow Parliament to recess for Christmas. A decision must be made about the reorganisation. The egg industry is in a muddle and a decision is vital if its future is to be secured. The Minister of Agriculture promised to make a statement at the beginning of December and it is scandalous that he has not made it.
Another matter which requires our early attention and which cannot wait until 20th January is that of education. There is an unholy mess in educational circles as a result of the decision of the Government on the school building programme, particularly concerning major projects and the conversion of schools for comprehensive purposes. In West Derbyshire, this state of affairs is particularly apparent and the education authorities there do not know whether they will be able to continue with their plans—which, it should be remembered, were put to and agreed by the Minister. We must have an opportunity to debate this matter and discover what local education authorities will be allowed to do and how quickly they will be allowed to do it to get the comprehensive system really working. This system has already been accepted in some parts of the country, but many improvements are necessary if it is to work.
The next point I wish to raise concerns transport. The two villages of Sudbury and Bradwell, in my constituency, have main roads running through them and children's lives are at risk. I am not referring to British Standard Time, although this, too, is a burning issue in my part of the country. I have been trying to get money made available for these roads to be improved so that the lives of my constituents, and particularly children, are not at stake. I should like to be able to raise this subject. There will be no opportunity between now and

our rising on Friday, and the topic should not wait to be aired until 20th January.
Lastly, we should have an early debate in the House on the much wider question of the facilities available in mental health, particularly for the treatment of mentally disturbed teenagers. There are only 16 units capable of receiving and treating such persons. This is a scandalous state of affairs. More money should be made available. The Government should give encouragement to the raising of money privately and voluntarily.
These are the four reasons why I oppose the Motion and submit that the House should return, not just a week early but, if necessary, two weeks early. There was merit in the suggestion of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) that the House should return a week or 10 days early and have a series of Adjournment debates, but on the matter of the Egg Marketing Board organisation and the import of dairy produce I would prefer full debates and votes, because I disagree with Ministerial policy on that issue.
I beg the Leader of the House not to treat this plea lightly, as he was asked to do by the hon. Member for Barons Court. This is a serious matter. We are all deeply concerned, not only about our constituency problems but also those of the nation.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. George Willis: I have much sympathy with the plea made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) concerning the Edinburgh-Hawick railway line and with the plea made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) concerning the teachers' dispute. In effect, both hon. Gentlemen plead for a statement before the Recess rather than for a shortening of the Recess.
I am opposed to shortening the Recess. In my constituency there is no great enthusiasm for Parliament meeting longer than it has to. Many of my constituents think that we spend far too much time talking already. My constituents are not like those of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths). The hon. Gentleman's constituents seem to be most depressed. Having frequently listened to his speeches in the House, I


am not surprised. My constituents are not depressed at Christmastime. They will be happy. They want to forget politics. They say "A plague on both your Houses. Let us forget it all for a time." My constituents are not defeatists.

Mr. David Crouch: But the right hon. Gentleman is.

Mr. Willis: I am not a defeatist. The speeches the hon. Gentleman made have not persuaded me that he contributes so much to national affairs that an extra week in which he could make more speeches would take the country out of its difficulties.
The constituents of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds seem to be very worried about the state of national security, a subject which we debated only yesterday. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the best way of allaying the fears of his constituents is for the Government to say that Parliament must meet during the next two or three weeks because our position is insecure?

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman has not got the point. My point is that my constituents do not trust the Government and they would rather Parliament were here keeping an eye on the Government, because they do not trust them to be left alone.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman said his constituents were worried about the nation's security. The worse way of seeking to allay their fears would be for Parliament to sit during the Recess because Parliament thought that the nation was in such an insecure position. That course of action would tend to exacerbate the fears of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, if such fears exist.
There is a good case for having a Recess of at least a month, or five weeks, or even longer. Hon. Members opposite need a rest. I have never seen such a poor Opposition in all my time in the House. At one time I used to hang on to every word uttered by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), but the hon. Gentleman now repeats himself, and everybody knows in advance what he is going to say. I think that it would do him good to spend three months down

in the West Country thinking up a few new ideas and a few new methods of attack. Then he would return regenerated and entertain us as he did before.

Mr. Peyton: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kindly tribute to myself. We all have much to learn from him in the matter of opposition. None of us has mastered the art of speaking at length to anything like the degree that he does, which makes him the unchallenged master of the art.

Mr. Willis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that tribute. He will admit that I am showing my gratitude by expressing my concern for him. I want to see him doing likewise. I want to see a vigorous Opposition and, what is more important, an Opposition who have ideas. It would be a good thing if the Tory Party took a three-month Recess and thought out an alternative policy.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Only last week we had a debate on foreign affairs in which the Opposition ran out of speakers and the Whips had to run around and find Members to speak.

Mr. Willis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reinforcing my argument I have never seen such a poor Opposition.

Mr. Tim Fortescue: On a point of order. What possible relevance does this speech have to the Motion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I am listening to the right hon. Gentleman very carefully. I will call him to order when it is necessary.

Mr. Willis: I am trying to show my reasons for thinking that we should adjourn, not merely for four weeks, but for five weeks and possibly longer. It would benefit Opposition Members and make them more vigorous. They would have time to think out a few more ploys and—this is vitally important—they would be able to think out an alternative policy to what the Government are doing. We do not get that at present. It might be a good thing for the nation were it presented with a realistic alternative to what the Government are doing. This is what democracy means. Therefore, the proposed Recess is very suitable—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend believe, after all his years of experience here, that five weeks, or even five months, would enable the Opposition to think up any programme? They had 17 years. If they could not do it in 17 years, how does he expect them to do it in five weeks?

Mr. Willis: I am by nature an optimist. I like to think the best of my fellow men, even if they are my political opponents. I like to think that they would be able to come up with an alternative policy.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is going into too much detail in his submission to the House on this account.

Mr. William Baxter (West Sterling-shire): On a point of order. I am listening with great care to the speech of my right hon. Friend. Surely his argument is directed to showing why we should not accept the Opposition's plea, but should agree to adjourn the House and have the Recess as proposed by the Government. I believe that my right hon. Friend is presenting an excellent argument.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: My remarks were directed to the right hon. Gentleman's detail rather than to his submission.

Mr. Willis: I do not want to say a great deal more. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If the Opposition wish me to continue, I do not mind. I could reinforce my arguments. Let us, for example, take the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor).

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Let my hon. Friend take him.

Mr. Willis: I am sure that every member of the Scottish Group could make the speech of the hon. Member for Cath-cart. He needs a rest so that he can prepare some new speeches. We know all his speeches by heart. We could make them ourselves, and do it much better than he does. He needs a rest of four or five weeks so that he may apply his mind to getting new material and preparing new speeches. It would do him good. But he is not alone. Many other hon. Members would equally benefit from a five-week Recess or even longer.
I am convinced that the majority of people in my constituency will not begrudge the House not sitting for five weeks. On the contrary, they will be glad that, for some time, we shall stop talking and let them get a rest from politics.

5.2 p.m.

Sir John Langford-Holt: I do not think that his speech did much credit either to the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) or to this institution.
We are used to hearing Leaders of the House proclaim, at intervals, the necessity for Parliament to go into recess for an adequate length of time while, at the same time, week after week, with tears in their eyes, saying they are unable to find time for various debates. I have re-read the business questions of the last two weeks. Apart from many minor problems which hon. Members have wished to raise, there have occurred some serious queries and problems which hon. Members have wished to see ventilated by Parliament.
For example, the Chairman of the Estimates Committee complained that his Committee was unable to examine all the Estimates put in front of it. Then there was the debate, or non-debate, on Biafra, which was included in the Foreign Affairs debate. The various issues were so muddled up that the House could not see what it was doing. In the vote, some hon. Members voted against the Government's negotiations over the Falkland Islands, some for stronger intervention in Biafra, and some may even have been voting on Gibraltar and other topics.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) made it clear that the Opposition intended to divide the House on the question of the Falkland Islands. Nigeria had nothing to do with it.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Not every hon. Member was voting on the Falkland Islands. Others were voting on the question of Biafra. That is quite clear to me from the debate and from the Division list.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: Does not the hon. Gentleman


agree that some hon. Members voted on both the Falkland Islands and on Biafra?

Sir J. Langford-Holt: The hon. Lady is confirming what I have been saying. In any case, the whole debate came out of Opposition and not Government time.
During all my years here, I have never seen a statement by the Chairman of the Estimates Committee of the day turned away quite so casually as it was by the Leader of the House, who invited him not to be too pessimistic. There are, of course, other problems with Select and Specialist Committees. If ever a debate was necessary it is one that should be held to consider the situation between this House and the Executive in the light of the Treasury's decision on how many Clerks the House is to have—rather like the fox saying how many people shall accompany the hounds when they are hunting it. It is for us to decide these matters and not for the Treasury or any other outside authority.
If time cannot be found while Parliament is sitting for the Estimates Committee, then time should be found for it during the Recess. I do not use the expression "holiday" because all hon. Members have other parliamentary duties than to sit in this Chamber. I know that a Recess is necessary as much for the Government as for Parliament as a whole, but the Recess which is contemplated is too long.
Then there is the Sixth Report of the Services Committee, which is fundamental to the efficiency and work of the Chamber. We need to debate that Report, which is vital also to the relationship between hon. Members and their constituents and between the House and the Executive. There are several other matters, such as the disbandment of the Select Committee on Agriculture. That disbandment is disgraceful, particularly since the Government's explanation is that the Committee cannot carry on because there are not sufficient Clerks to man it. The Leader of the House should see that hon. Members have the resources to do their job.
I do not want to argue one side or the other in dealing with Biafra today, but I remind the House that we discussed Biafra during the Summer Recess only

because the Russians invaded Czechoslovakia. It was quite clear on that occasion that, rightly or wrongly, the House wished to have a vote on the subject. In all my years here I have never seen such a disgraceful manoeuvre as that adopted by the Government to preventing a vote on that occasion. The House should have an opportunity, whatever one's views, to discuss Biafra, and this time as a subject on its own so that hon. Members may devote their whole attention to the problem. The House has the right even to be wrong.
About 100 Early-day Motions have been put down by hon. Members. Many of them are fatuous, but many deal with subjects which hon. Members wish to discuss and if we fail to discuss them we do so at our peril.

5.9 p.m.

Mr. John Lee: I agree with the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) about Biafra. It is a thousand pities that the House goes away again without Biafra being discussed in a debate on its own. It is surely a matter of sufficient importance for debate. It has aroused enough feeling inside and outside the House to warrant one.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) gave as a reason for not adjourning, or at least for abridging the Recess, the impending execution of a railway line. My reason for requiring the recall of the House earlier than contemplated, even if the Adjournment cannot be delayed beyond this week, is the possible execution of a number of people.
I refer to a number of people who have been lying under sentence of death in Rhodesia for a very considerable time. I refer to their lying under sentence of death, but that may beg questions whether they are subject to any legal jurisdiction. In certain cases—and it is fair to say that it only adds to the poignancy of the situation—they have been under sentence of death for so long that sentence was passed on them before the high treason of November, 1965, took place. I suppose that it is ironical that these at least may be legally held in duress.
Before we rise for the Christmas Recess it is incumbent on us to give some thought to their fate. Whatever may be the arguments for or against capital punishment—and the House has already taken its decision of that matter, subject to a Resolution in two years' time—there can be nothing but revulsion against a situation that permits people to lie under sentence of death at the hands of a group of people who have themselves committed an offence which also carries capital punishment, namely, high treason—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sidney Irving): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot debate this matter now.

Mr. Lee: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I hope that the Leader of the House will give us an assurance that if, during the next four or five weeks, it is apparent that the execution of any of these people is imminent, the House will be recalled so that we may be able to express an opinion, if not to discuss what retaliatory action we should take in regard to what would be an outrage against our constitution.
Of the many reasons that hon. Members have produced in favour of the House either not going into recess at the end of this week or returning earlier than the date proposed, none is of quite the same degree of gravity except, perhaps, the situation in Biafra.
Another reason sufficiently important to justify our staying on is that we should know whether or not the Government intend to have an inquiry into those City activities which gave rise to such grave embarrassment some ten days ago. I do not expect my right hon. Friend to give us any kind of exposition to improve on the Government's economic policy, but we might get some idea of whether the Government intend to take note of the opinions expressed by a large number of hon. Members, by no means from one section of the party, who have said that they want an inquiry into the City of London's speculative activities; that they want it now, and that they want it to be in public.
Although everyone welcomes at least one of the events that have taken place in Northern Ireland in the last few days,

it is, nevertheless, desirable that at an early date we should have a debate into what is a taxpayers subsidised Tory Party police State in Northern Ireland—

Sir Knox Cunningham: Quite untrue.

Mr. Lee: I do not want to go into the merits of the present position there, if merits there be, but it should be well known to my right hon. Friends that a debate on this subject would attract a wide measure of support on this side of the House.
Two other matters, though of less importance, also demand early attention. There is the continuing situation at the Hornsey College of Art—[Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh. Of course, the subject is not in the same plane of importance as the others I have mentioned—but it concerns many people especially many students and the livelihood of those who work at the college. Some of us would like to know when it can be considered.
The present power of the Minister of Housing and Local Government to prevent the sale of council house land is very limited. My Tory-controlled local authority in Reading is minded to get rid of a lot of the land it owns. When can we have a debate on this subject, and when can we have a promise of legislation so to extend the Minister's powers as to enable him to veto the sale of council house land which, in most cases, has been done out of malice and with a view to stultifying a proper housing programme?
I give those as reasons for the House either to depart later, or to come back somewhat earlier, and with good grace.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee), except to say that if people like himself and some of his hon. Friends showed rather more responsibility towards some great problems such as those in Northern Ireland, those problems would not be built to such proportions.
I suggest four matters which the House should have an opportunity to discuss before rising or should come back to


discuss at a date earlier than that proposed. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) on the question of the dismissal of teachers in Scotland. That is very serious for all aspects of Scottish education. We must know more about it, because by the time we come back on the suggested date many of the education authorities will have had to take certain very serious decisions affecting not only the future of these teachers themselves, but the staffing of the schools.
My next item is the reorganisation of egg marketing. I will not repeat the arguments that have already been advanced, except to say that in areas such as that I represent, away from the consuming centres, it is essential for producers to have some form of organised marketing. The great concern in those areas is affecting both production and producers' plans for next season. I hope that before we rise for the Christmas Recess we can have some assurance, so that the producers may know where they stand.
My next point is more local, and relates to a very grave threat hanging over employment in North-East Scotland—the threatened closure of the locomotive works at Inverurie, Aberdeenshire. It is already the subject of an Adjournment debate by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson), but I want the Leader of the House to realise that closure would affect many men's jobs. We do not know whether the closure is to take place but, regardless of political party, all of us in North-East Scotland are concerned. It is essential that a proper answer be given before the House rises.
The subject of British Standard Time has been raised during business questions for the last few weeks, but we have had no opportunity to debate it. By 20th January the days will, mercifully, be longer. Are the Government waiting until then before making a definitive statement of their attitude? Are they, perhaps, hoping that the protests against this disastrous experiment will be stilled by then because the days have lengthened?
As hon. Members we have a duty to voice the protests of our constituents. We have: not been given that opportunity. I ask that we should have an opportunity

to debate it before the end of this week, or that we should have a statement from the Government, or that we should come back while our constituents are still experiencing these conditions—before it becomes just a memory, which is appears the Government are trying to make it.
The Home Secretary promised a review. We want to know what form that review will take. We want to hear what benefits British Standard Time is bringing to the country. We also want to say to Ministers what tremendous inconvenience and discomfort is caused for people. If we wait until 20th January we shall not have the opportunity to question Ministers about the vague answers they have given so far on this subject.
I ask the Government to take another look at the proposal for this length of Recess. If we could have statements about the points I have raised, I would reconsider my opposition to this Motion. The most important subject is that of British Standard Time. I hope that we shall have a proper answer on that this afternoon.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: I wish to speak in favour of the Motion that we should adjourn for the time proposed so that the Minister of Transport may reconsider the decision he has taken in respect of the Upminster-Emerson Park-Romford line, which affects my constituency, a decision which will cause great hardship locally. I hope that the opportunity will be taken during the Recess to reconsider that decision.
It is important that the Minister of Transport should also consider the continuing problems of the Thames lighterage industry, which is faced with a great deal of uncertainty. I hope that this matter will receive urgent attention as soon as the House reassembles. Without going into the merits of the subject, I hope that the Minister of Transport will also take the opportunity of the Adjournment to consider investment grants in respect of tug boats plying on the Thames.
My main reason for speaking in favour of the Motion is that it will give an opportunity for hon. Members particularly hon. Members opposite, to do some background reading. Part of the constitutional crisis referred to by the hon. Member


for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) is that too many hon. Members, particularly those opposite, speak in hysterical, excitable terms, and a little background reading for them would improve the situation. The hon. Member over-iced the cake. He is well known in the House for making long quotations from learned documents which he has read.
I advise hon. Members that not only does the Adjournment give an opportunity for reading, but also for an evaluation of that reading. Although it is true that the nation faces unparalleled perils economically and in foreign affairs, there is no substitute for understanding the problem by having it properly evaluated.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Williams: No I shall not give way to the hon. and learned Member—to any other hon. Member, yes.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: rose —

Hon. Members: Give way.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is it not a recognised convention of the House that when an hon. Member mentions the name of another hon. Member he gives way to him?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is for the hon. Member concerned to decide whether he will give way. Mr. Alan Lee Williams.

Mr. Williams: I did not see the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds rise. I saw only the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) rise.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I accept at once that the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Alan Lee Williams) is always courteous and I agree with him on a great number of things. I am glad to hear that in his opinion the nation faces unparalleled perils both in economic and foreign policy. Does he think that they can be properly evaluated more when Parliament is not in session than when it is in session?

Mr. Williams: The whole burden of my intervention is that these matters should be properly evaluated by hon.

Members, but there is no point in exaggerating them.
The Leader of the House will face a challenging few months with very important legislation on matters coming before the House during this Session. We should pay tribute to him for the way in which he has faced his task and the challenges which lie ahead.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. David Crouch: I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is your wish that we should speak briefly in this debate, but I think that this is the most important moment before the House rises. Voices have been raised from both sides of the House about matters which concern both the nation as a whole and parts of the nation in our constituents' problems. This is a moment when Members of Parliament have the right to question whether the Government should seek that the House should go into recess for a month.
I wish not to voice the particular views of my constituents, but to emphasise a view which, I think, exists throughout the nation—that there is something wrong in the state of Britain today and that it is wrong for us to go from this House for a month into recess while others can voice an opinion on the progress or otherwise of our nation. I am not concerned that we might make speeches in our constituencies or in the country, or write or read articles in the Press, or attend meetings between politicians and industrialists, industrialists and trade unionists, or industrialists and others, wherever they occur. The foundation of democracy rests in this place, the House of Commons.
The nation we represent—let us not forget that we still sit as representatives of the people, as a parliamentary democracy—believes that we have a job to do here. If ever there were a case in recent history in peacetime when we should not retire into recess it is now when the problems of the nation are being swept under the parliamentary carpet and that then we should return to see what has arisen for us to tidy up. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) wish to interrupt?

Mr. Cyril Bence: No, I will say it when the hon. Member sits down.

Mr. Crouch: I wish to put before the Leader of the House some of the problems which face us and which I think to be of sufficient importance to require him to think again and to recommend to his colleagues in the Cabinet that it is wrong for us not to come back sooner than 20th January. We are faced with a great problem which is under discussion among the public and in the technical and the economic Press and in banking circles, namely, whether our currency should go on to a floating rate. That problem requires great thought.
May be, as the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) suggested, the Recess will give us an opportunity for such thought. I accept that there is a value in recess for hon. Members to give thought to such matters and to return refreshed, encouraged and with greater vigour to face problems, but there is the danger that events may change so quickly that we have to return earlier to consider some of the problems which are facing us.
One problem concerns the all-important question hanging over this House and the nation about the future of the £, which is still lying on the floor. Last Sunday, there was an article by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) on the question of a floating rate, which he is clearly against. But there are also views on the other side. I will not seek to weary the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and get you on your feet, by arguing and debating that case. I would merely say that there is a debate in the air and it should take place soon after Christmas.
Equally, there is the matter of the rate of investment in the private sector of British industry. Only last Sunday there was this most important meeting at Chequers. Surely one of the most important things to be considered there, which this House does not yet know about, was the rate of investment in the private sector of industry. Why is it so slack and sluggish? This House demands to know and demands to see a move forward in 1969. Yet we are to wait a month without knowing what is happening when industry is poised on an opportunity, a chance, to make progress and succeed.
I know from my contacts in industry that there is no doom and depression in

industry today. But doom is being preached by the communicators in our society in the Press and on television. These are the great depressors. We, in this House, can give a lead, and we look to the Leader of the House for that lead and opportunity. We must give that lead soon, not too late.
This is not a time for others outside this House to take over from the Government Front Bench. Already there are signs of movement and voices being raised outside this Chamber to take over from the Government Front Bench. I look to the Leader of the House, who I know regards this as a serious point, to return to this House the fulcrum of control in our public life. He cannot let it fall through his hands.
I have asked the Leader of the House before to consider things which I believe we should discuss. One matter that I believe we should give ourselves time to discuss is the reform, not of the other place, but of this House of Parliament and the Committee rooms above. I may be called a reactionary, I may look a reactionary, but I am very progressive in this sense. The Leader of the House knows that I have never been against ideas put before us by his predecessor. I should like to see more opportunity given to this House to perform its real function of progressive government. I should like to see action by Select Committees examining proposals before action by the Government is taken, not afterwards. I should like to have ideas from the Government put before Select Committees. Let us have more Select Committees, but let us give the House more time to have Select Committees.
The Leader of the House has a serious problem before him and he may require time. It is not enough to come before us on Thursday afternoons and say, "I cannot give time". We require him to give time, and he will have to find time.
I no longer sit on the Select Committee on the Nationalised Industries. But why has it not been called this last autumn? Not once has it sat. The Committee has not been reconstituted. Yet it did invaluable service in preparing a Report for the Government and for Parliament.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Member is


now entering into argument of the case. He must return to the Motion.

Mr. Crouch: I think that I have made my point. I apologise if I detained the House longer than I should have done.
One other relevant point I should like to bring to the attention of the House and the right hon. Gentleman concerns industry. This point has often been raised at Question Time and is increasingly being raised outside the House. Industry is poised to help the nation succeed and the trade unions are poised to co-operate with industry, with management and with this House to go forward and raise our productivity and our wealth to help us achieve our aim. But industry has the Government sitting on its back too much. We have too many industrial and economic Ministries sitting on the back of industry today, and we want time to discuss this matter. I ask the Leader of the House to bear this point in mind.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I did not intend to speak in the debate, but I was roused by some remarks of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). I will be brief, but I must take up his point about this House being the most essential and vital part of our Parliamentary democracy. It is an essential part, but I have always held the view, in the 17 years that I have been here, that the essential element in our democracy is the people of Britain. They are a solid group of people with a long tradition and reputation for sound common sense. The people make our democracy work, not this Chamber. We also have an excellent Civil Service and an excellent free Press. These are the elements of our democracy as it is today. The fact that this Chamber goes into recess—neither the Government nor the Civil Service goes into recess—will not undermine that democracy.
I can understand the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friends who, on the Adjournment, raise constituency issues, but the hon. Gentleman wants to make it a constitutional issue. This is absolutely pompous humbug.

Mr. Crouch: If the hon. Gentleman, who normally addresses the House with great wisdom and experience, as I acknowledge, is suggesting that we leave it to Whitehall, Westminster might as well

retire. I do not understand his point of view.

Mr. Bence: I am not suggesting that we should go into recess for 12 months, although by the insistence of demands for Prayers I get the impression that some hon. Members would like that. The hon. Gentleman talks about not going into recess, but staying here. I do not know what all the trunks, bags and suitcases down in the cloisters are doing. I do not know whether they are going on their own. For the hon. Gentleman to suggest that this House going into recess for one month will put the country in dire peril is quite wrong.
The hon. Gentleman has really blown the gaff. I do not know whether he intended it, but his words were clear. He said that there is no gloom and dismay in British industry. I know that throughout British industry the order books axe full, the employers are happy, and everyone is doing better than for years. I assume that is what the hon. Gentleman means.
A famous British car has just won the rally to Sydney, and another famous British car of a company I know well has come second.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Name it.

Mr. Bence: It was a B.M.C. 1800. There is no story of gloom. Everything is prosperous. The hon. Gentleman is worried that Parliament will not be sitting for hon. Gentlemen opposite to make speeches to be reported. However, they will be able to make speeches in their constituencies. They will not condemn industrial efforts in their constituencies, but they can do it here. Therefore, the exercise, from the hon. Gentleman's point of view, is to have this Chamber sitting so that the Opposition can put down hundreds of Questions, which are often almost irrelevant—[Interruption.]—I was in Opposition a long time, so I know something about putting Questions to the Executive. We know what they are about and we know the function of the Opposition.
I approve of the Opposition opposing, but not from the hon. Member's standpoint. Other hon. Members have raised legitimate points but he tried to create the impression that all our industry, commerce, monetary system and, indeed, the


morality of the State, depend on this Chamber meeting four days a week, with an hour for Questions followed by debates on all manner of subjects. It does not. This is an essential part, but only a part, of the democratic system.
It is a good thing for us all to meet constituents. No doubt it is good for hon. Members to go to the Riviera, Bermuda and the West Indies for their holidays. Most of us cannot afford to do it, but hon. Members opposite can. The more that one learns about the world, the more one can apply oneself to one's own country, but I dislike the pomposity of the claim that it is not our people but this House that is the essential element of democracy. I believe that the finest buttress of democracy is the common people in industry, commerce and services.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: Would my hon. Friend agree that it would greatly help ordinary people if medical services, a legal and secretarial service and proper accommodation were provided for hon. Members so that they were able to answer the needs of their constituents?

Mr. Bence: I should be out of order if I developed that argument, since this is a debate on the Adjournment and not the social services. However, if my hon. Friend is called, she can no doubt talk about those things herself.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Ian Mat-Arthur: My hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) and North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) have mentioned the educational problem which we in Scotland face and I want to return to this question on another aspect of the argument. I hope that the Leader of the House will assure us either that a statement will be made before the end of this week or that he will agree to provide for the House to sit on Monday so that we may have a statement or a full debate.
I raised this question with the right hon. Gentleman last Thursday and asked if there would be a statement this week. With his; usual courtesy, he said that he would consult the Secretary of State. Has he completed those consultations and will a statement be made? If there is to be no statement, I trust that we will have a debate on the matter on Monday.
The need for an early statement or debate arises from the fact that Scottish local authorities are required by law to provide education but at the same time are now required to dismiss 1,200 of the qualified teachers who provide it. This is an absurd position. It is a quandry in which local education authorities and teachers have been placed by the Government's incompetence and by the fact that, when the Government introduced the Regulations which caused this position, they were themselves in ignorance of the facts and gave the House a totally wrong impression.
The Regulations required local authorities to dismiss teachers who had not registered with the General Teaching Council. When they were laid, we prayed against them, one of our primary reasons being the need to discover how many teachers were affected. We were assured by the Government that, although the pricise number could not be ascertained then, it was very small. The Minister who replied to the debate repeated the words "very small".
While I accept that he spoke in good faith on his available advice at the time, the repeated use of the words "very small" gave the House a reassurance which we now find was totally unjustified, and for which the Minister apologised last week—

Mr. Willis: On a point of order. You have previously ruled, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we are not to discuss the merits or adduce the arguments about some matter which we would like to raise I suggest to you that that is what the hon. Member is now doing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman must leave the Chair to decide that.

Mr. MacArthur: It was largely because of that assurance to the House that the Prayer was withdrawn, yet last Wednesday—

Mr. George Lawson: Further to that point of order. May we take it that we will be permitted to continue this discussion in the same vein as the hon. Member?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would hope that the Chair will treat all hon. and right hon. Members in the same way.

Mr. MacArthur: rose —

Mr. W. Baxter: Further to that point of order. I have listened with a good deal of interest not only to the debate but to the Rulings from the Chair. I had occasion to intervene after a Ruling against my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and I should like to balance this and see how far the debate can go without one side being called to order as against the other.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member will not reflect on the decisions of the Chair.

Mr. MacArthur: I have some sympathy with right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have raised these points of order, because I can understand that they and their colleagues are now gravely embarrassed to discover that the House of Commons was misinformed, indeed misled, although in good faith—I accept that—and that we therefore reached a decision last month critical to education in Scotland on information which was wholly wrong. It is because of that that I believe that a statement or a debate is essential before we rise for the Recess.
Last Wednesday, five weeks after the debate in which these statements were made, we were told that the number of qualified teachers—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member is now going beyond the Motion.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order. I submit to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker that my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) is advancing arguments for saying that we should have a statement on this matter urgently before we rise. Surely that is in order in this debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is perfectly in order in advancing arguments as to why we should not go into recess or should come back earlier, but he has identified the problem very clearly already and should now stick to the Motion on the Order Paper.

Mr. MacArthur: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker and I will immediately—

Miss Margaret Herbison: On a point of order. So far, the hon. Member has entered into arguments on the merits of a certain subject and some of us feel that an answer should be given to what he has already said. We should like an assurance that we can at least deal with the points that the hon. Member has been allowed to raise.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Lady will have to wait to try to catch my eye.

Mr. MacArthur: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I turn now to another aspect of this question and the need for the statement which the right hon. Lady will, I am sure, welcome as much as I, because her purpose and mine are the same in this matter. We must have a statement before we rise for the Christmas Recess because, during January—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Genleman has indicated the nature of the problem which he wishes to have brought before the House. He ought not to pursue it further.

Mr. MacArthur: With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must as the hon. Gentleman not to pursue it.

Mr. MacArthur: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was turning to an entirely different aspect of the question. During January, local education authorities throughout Scotland will meet to determine what they should now do in the light of the requirement placed upon them by law. If they follow that requirement, which the House of Commons allowed to be passed the other day, they will be required to dismiss 1,200 teachers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The border line between indicating the problem to the House which the hon. Gentleman wishes to have dealt with and entering into argument is very fine. He is now going over that borderline.

Mr. MacArthur: I accept your Ruling at once, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The opportunity for a statement or a debate on Monday next would enable the Government to announce that the Regulations were to be suspended for a period. I hope that that opportunity will be taken, and that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not pursue the matter any more.

Mr. MacArthur: Then I conclude in this way, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Now that the right hon. Gentleman has had his consultations with the Secretary of State for Scotland, may we have a reply this afternoon which will enable us, the teaching profession, the General Teaching Council and the local authorities of Scotland to know precisely where we stand before the House rises?

5.51 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: I had not intended to intervene in the debate, but the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Mac-Arthur) has raised an important matter. I was present throughout the debate on the Prayer which the Opposition put down against the Regulations, and I am most concerned that our children in Scotland should have sufficient teachers to give them the kind of education which we want them to have. I should welcome it if we met on Monday so that the Under-Secretary of State or the Secretary of State for Scotland could deal with this vital matter. However, I wish now to take up several of the points which the hon. Gentleman made.
The hon. Gentleman said that we were in an absurd situation, with a shortage of teachers yet the chance that over 1,000 certificated teachers in Scotland would be dismissed. He said that in the debate on the Regulations we had reached a decision critical for education and we had reached it on false information.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that over 97 per cent. of Scottish teachers have registered and that fewer than 2½ per cent. have not done so. I put to the hon. Gentleman that he himself supported the Report of the Wheatley Committee—

Mr. John Bitten: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not plain that, since the right hon. Lady constantly puts her points to my hon.

Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire rather than to the Leader of the House, she herself must be straying out of order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is equally wrong. The points should be addressed to the Chair.

Miss Herbison: I stand corrected, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall put my points to the Chair. What I am interested to know is why hon. Members opposite are creating a fuss in the House and in Scotland now. They supported the Report of the Wheatley Committee, they supported the legislation passed through the House to set up the General Teaching Council, and the Regulations were brought in under that legislation. Why the fuss now? I have come to the conclusion that their motive is similar to that displayed in debate yesterday and the presentation of the Petition today. Anything which hon. Members think will appeal to a small minority, no matter how small the number of dissidents, they will use, while knowing at the same time that there is nothing in the case which they are trying to make.
I have a scattered constituency, and I have a great deal to do in that constituency during the four weeks of the Recess, not like London Members and some other Members who can do their jobs when the House is sitting, but I shall be willing to come back here on Monday to give the House a chance to debate this matter fully in order to show not only hon. Members opposite but the small minority of teachers—I have had representations from them, too—that it is of the greatest importance that the legislation should be followed and that all teachers should register.
Another matter which we could discuss on Monday, if we return here, is the pledge which some hon. Members opposite have given that they will ask the Government to hold a plebiscite of Scottish teachers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the score is even and that honour has been served. The right hon. Lady ought not now to go further.

Miss Herbison: I am putting the reasons why I support hon. Members opposite in their request that the House should not rise on Friday but should sit


again on Monday, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) could then have opportunity to tell the Secretary of State why he supports the idea of a plebiscite, and I could tell the Secretary of State why I do not consider that we should rule the country by plebiscites. It is important that we should have a chance to put these matters to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. John Biffen: We have been privileged to listen to a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee out of time and out of place. I hope that I shall be excused if I do not follow the vein of the last two or three speeches.
The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Alan Lee Williams) said in measured terms that he considers that we face unparalleled economic perils. I happen not to agree with him. In my view, we are far too gloomy about these things. Nevertheless, there is widespread concern that Parliament should now be going into recess for a month or so, a concern which was well put by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths). I hope that my hon. Friend will carry his convictions to a Division. If he does, I shall support him.
The matter which I wish to put to the Leader of the House, however, is not so much what the public may be thinking about the performance of Parliament but what we ourselves ought to regard as the function of this House. In that context, I endorse what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) and take issue with the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence).
The most charitable explanation for the hon. Gentleman's speech which I can suggest is that it was an impromptu effort and that it was out of thoughtlessness that he applied the term "pomposity" to the pertinent point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury. I am sure that that is not a charge which, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman would wish to sustain, any more than I should wish to sustain the accusation that he is the kind of Parliamentary putty on which strong Executives prey.
The reason why I have real apprehension about our rising until 20th

January derives from the weekend meeting at "Chequers" referred to by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) and several of my hon. Friends. I shall not discuss the merits of having another National Plan, or inviting the National Economic Development Council to co-operate in the production of such a plan. My point is that the House should have time to have every bit as much consultation as the N.E.D.C. on the targets to be put in the plan, on the implications for an incomes policy, on the implications for rates of investment and the implications for a balance of payments surplus.
We should have every opportunity of knowing what was said at "Chequers" so that we may determine to what the T.U.C. is purported to have been committed as a result of that meeting. There are now conflicting Press reports, and it is thoroughly undesirable that the House should have to rely on the Financial Times to know what goes on at such meetings. What makes this very relevant is that the next meeting takes place on 14th January at the office of the National Economic Development Council. I know because this morning I telephoned the Council to inquire when it would have its next meeting to continue the discussions about which we have been acquainted in the daily Press as a result of the so-called Chequers weekend. If the House has any self-respect, it will want a chance to debate the problems which were discussed last weekend. It cannot have that debate before the next meeting of the National Economic Development Council, unless the Leader of the House withdraws the Motion in response to the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds, and substitutes another, or gives an undertaking that discussions with the National Economic Development Council will not proceed any further until the House has been enabled to have its say.
My second point concerns redundancies. Even those with the most casual acquaintance with the financial world know that a series of takeover bids is in progress. They will all proceed during the Recess. There are the Unilever bid for Allied Breweries, the Rank Organisation bid for De La Rue, and the Beecham's bid for Horlicks, and


the list could be protracted. They all imply redundancies, and the whole question of the future of the redundancy scheme, which on the Government's admission, is under review, should be debated in the House at the earliest opportunity. The industrial and commercial world will not stand still until 20th January. Redundancies will not stand still until 20th January, and the House should have every chance to share with the Executive its opinions on what alterations should be made in the redundancy Regulations, not least in view of the following Answer to me by the Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment and Productivity:
The working of the Redundancy Payments Act is under review, but my right hon. Friend is not yet able to say what amendments to the Act may be required."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1968; Vol. 775, c. 258.]
We should like to be consulted before the Act is amended.
Finally, what is possibly the most important matter of all which will be to the for; whether or not the House is sitting—the question of monetary arrangements. The world economy will not stand still until 20th January. If the Government are to proceed with a new arrangement for international payments settlements, it is vital that they should share their thinking with the House and not present us with a fiat to be confirmed by a three-line Whip some time after 20th January. The relevance of 20th January is that that is the day when President Nixon takes full authority in the United States. If an international monetary meeting is called by the Americans in their rô1e as major reserve currency bankers, and the British Government go without having consulted the House, without the House having been able to give its views on such things as the price of gold or floating exchange rates, we shall have abdicated what I believe to be our still essential authority. If from no more than a sense of respect for the House and its vitality, I hope that we shall impress on the Leader of the House that the Motion will not do.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: It has been refreshing to hear the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) and Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) try-

ing today to dispel the clouds of gloom that have floated over the House as a consequence of speeches by their leaders in the past two weeks. In an uncharacteristically irresponsible speech in Scotland, the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) talked about the country teetering on the brink of economic disaster. It is good to hear his hon. Friends dissociating themselves from those sentiments. There is no doubt that grave economic problems face the country, none more grave than those presented by the systematic attempts of the Opposition leaders to undermine confidence at home and abroad, and their attempt to replan the regional policy of the central Government. It is that, above all, which I think that the House would wish to debate if it agreed to an extension of the Parliamentary term, because we have not recently had a debate on regional policy.
The Leader of the Opposition said categorically in a recent speech in Scotland that he would throw out of the window the Government's economic policies, which have done so much to transform the industry of Scotland, diminishing its dependence on the heavier, traditional industries and strengthening the development of modern, technologically-based industries. Above all, we in Scotland feel that there should be a debate on the implications of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals for the Highlands and Islands. What he has advocated is a return to the growth centre policy of the Toothill Report. What that would have meant for the Highlands and Islands is that development which we have welcomed, such as the development of the new heavy industries in Inver-gordon, would never have taken place, and the future of the Atomic Energy Authority's establishment at Dounreay would have been threatened. There are reasons for feeling gloomy if one takes the right hon. Gentlemen at their word.
There are two other points which we should consider in a debate on regional and economic policy. One concerns the future of the nuclear energy industry. It is many months since my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology indicated his intention to reorganise the industry and since the Select Committee made recommendations. It is also many months since we had a clear statement


of the position. It is time my right hon. Friend reported to the House. There is grave and growing disquiet throughout the industry that the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation has failed to set up the two new design and construction groups which the Government proposed should be established. The fear is not only that we are losing valuable exporting time but that we are creating a grave loss of morale in the atomic energy industry. We need a statement on scientific personnel and manpower policy planning. I hope that before the House rises we shall have an opportunity to debate that vital issue.
I turn from that nationally important matter to a more local issue which I wish to raise because it will be innovated during the Recess. It concerns the railway line north of Inverness, which is vitally important socially to my constituents and to those of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie). I fear that the proposals of British Railways to introduce new timetables on 6th January will have a serious effect on the use of that line, and I hope that even at this date my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport will intervene to prevent this unfortunate step.
Another subject already mentioned as being of great concern throughout the country which might require us to reassemble earlier than planned is that of Nigeria. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has recently returned from Africa and will no doubt have much to report to the House about his meetings there, and my noble Friend Lord Shepherd likewise. The debate on Nigeria indicated that the position was changing almost daily, and we may apprehend a serious deterioration in the situation within the Ibo heartland over the next two months. The House would wish to be apprised of developments and to be able to consider what steps it could take to relieve the tragic situation which is developing there.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: In supporting our point of view the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has clearly and sincerely made many comments with

which we can agree. However, I was surprised by his specific request that the House should discuss the danger to the Government's present economic policies of speeches by Opposition Members. I remember that in the last four years of Conservative policies in Scotland the number of jobs increased net by 30,000, while in the last four years it has decreased by about 20,000. Among other things, that would be a good reason for recalling the House early.
I support the request for an early return, certainly a week earlier, to discuss the serious educational problem in Scotland.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): The hon. Gentleman will appreciate the pitfalls for the Chair in the subject on which he is now embarking. I hope that he will recall the remarks of the Chair about too much detail on this subject.

Mr. Taylor: Certainly. I have been here for the whole debate and I have heard all the Rulings, and I shall do my best to abide by them.
In the years that I have been in the House, I have always listened with pleasure to the speeches of the right hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), who speaks with great sincerity, but she was very unfair to my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur). Hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that the educational problem in Scotland is a difficult matter to resolve and that, whatever the Government or the Opposition say, they will be criticised. What is important, however, is that this is a problem which only Government action or Parliamentary decision can resolve and the House should be able to discuss it and try to find some solution. Any statement on subjects of urgent importance like this can be misinterpreted, but my hon. Friends have endeavoured not to fall into this error.
In my constituency there is a school where 20 teachers are affected, and at least one senior secondary school in my constituency will be seriously affected unless this issue is resolved one way or the other. On Saturday, I had a visit from some senior pupils who were also concerned. I do not under-estimate the seriousness of the problem, but all


Scottish Members want it to be resolved and it is the general feeling that it can be resolved only by discussion in Parliament, or Government decision.

Mr. William Hannan (Glasgow, Mary-hill): Why will the hon. Gentleman dissemble in this matter? Parliament has talked about it and it is the law of the land. Let the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends advise the very small minority of teachers in this matter to do the honourable thing by the majority of their colleagues and register, as they would normally have done under the previous legislation. It is not now the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The responsibility lies squarely and fairly on a recalcitrant minority.

Mr. Speaker: It looks as though we are debating an issue; we may not do so in this debate.

Mr. Taylor: Much as I should like to discuss that comment, I shall not do so. There may be right and wrong on both sides, and the minority may be wrong and misguided, but in Scotland there are 1,200 teachers who may be suspended before, during, or shortly after the recess and it is only right that we should see whether there is some way of resolving the difficulty.
Another reason for recalling the House a little earlier is that there is considerable concern throughout the country about rising prices. Although we have had many debates on economic matters, this is one question which does not seem to have been discussed. I should like the House to return a day earlier so that we may discuss the operation of the Prices and Incomes Board, and in particular, whether the Government have a prices as well as an incomes policy.
I was very surprised to be told in answer to a Question recently, that over the last five months only one price had been referred to the Board, and that was the price of synthetic organic dyestuffs which is not a vital item in the normal family budget. The Government ought to have the opportunity to explain precisely why a highly qualified team of 12 top specialists, who were given the responsibility within the P.I.B. of considering prices, have considered only that price.
We should also have a little time to discuss the general police shortage throughout the United Kingdom. As the result of a recent pay settlement, we have some hope for the future, but monthly figures from the areas show that in many areas where there is a serious manpower problem there is also a serious problem of law and order. The House should return a little earlier to discuss this vital question. It would be madness not to come back if there were any possibility of resolving the serious and dangerous education problem in Scotland which will affect many children in our Scottish constituencies.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. William Baxter: I have listened to the debate with much interest and two issues seem to me to trouble both Opposition Members and Government supporters. The first is the difficulty of the education problem in Scotland and how it must be resolved. Some hon. Members have argued that we should return earlier, or keep going a little longer, to discuss this matter. As this is purely a Scottish question, I wonder whether the Leader of the House would consider a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh to discuss it during the Recess. While the law of the land is quite specific about the setting up of the Scottish Teaching Council, there is, nevertheless, a fair minority of teachers directly opposed to becoming members of that organisation.
Like yourself, Mr. Speaker, I have regard and respect for minority opinion, and recognise that it should be heard, that the other point of view should be understood. People may misunderstand the position, but if the Scottish Grand Committee could meet to discuss this during the Recess it could be publicly debated and the pros and cons put clearly before the public. This would help to resolve the problem.
The second matter which I have heard discussed, which is disturbing hon. Members on both sides of the House, is the industrial well-being of our nation. Some are of the opinion that we should continue for a little longer to discuss this important question, or come back earlier. They imagine that their words of wisdom or otherwise would have some fundamental effect upon the course of our industrial well-being. I am of the opinion that


during the Recess, industry, the Press and the population generally get a greater degree of satisfaction and a feeling that Britain is surging ahead. It is only when Parliament is sitting that we get these speeches of depression and problems magnified out of all proportion. These give a false impression about our industrial well-being.
We are now seeing the birth of a new industrial nation. I have high expectations for the development of British industry. Notwithstanding recent difficulties, I forecast that within a few years Britain will be looked upon as an example to the whole world. There are reasons—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may make that speech in the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh or here, in one of the extra days that he is asking for, but he cannot make it now.

Mr. Baxter: Thank you for bringing me back to the debate, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to point out that there are reasons why we should rise for the Christmas Recess with at least hope and expectation in our breasts. It is because of that that I make my contribution this evening. This is a season of goodwill and great expectation. I have no doubt as to how this country will fare in the future, but I am greatly depressed when hon. Members on both sides of the House want to curtail our Recess and produce more despondency. We should rise, with pride and satisfaction, in the knowledge that the work of the Government has been well done, and the results will be a great credit to us all.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I want to support those of my hon. Friends who, during the course of this debate, have opposed this Motion. It is wrong for Parliament to go into recess for the length of time proposed here. Before I come to my main reasons for saying this I should like to refer to two matters of agricultural policy. It is wrong for the House to rise for four weeks in the light of the knowledge that we might not in the next few days get a statement from the Minister of Agriculture about the future of the Egg Marketing Board. We received a promise from him that he would make a statement on this early in December, but

when I asked the Leader of the House last Thursday when we could expect this, he told us that he could not guarantee that it would be before Christmas. This is a very serious matter and the House should go on sitting until we get this statement.
From what we read in this morning's papers about internal troubles in the Cabinet it is even more important that we should debate this issue as soon as possible. We should also debate the problem of dumped dairy produce, particularly cheese which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), through whose initiative a delegation went to see the Minister last week.
The main reason why the House should not rise on Friday for four weeks is because of the economic situation. This is not only to do with industry but the mood of the people. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), but am unable to go all the way with my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen). There are a number of serious economic problems which need to be discussed. It would not be out of character for this Government to bypass Parliament and muddle on.
Parliament ought to discuss the multi-million pound debt which this nation has built up over the last few years. As a matter of urgency it should pay attention to the report in the Financial Times this morning that the Central Bank of France is said to have repaid most of its recent borrowings under the "swap" arrangements with other leading central banks. This is an important fact if it is true, and I want to know what this Government are doing to repay the staggering international debt which we seemed to have piled up over these four years.
We should have an early debate on the reported meeting at "Chequers" this weekend. If we are to believe what we have seen in the newspapers, this is very important and Parliament ought to talk about it. We have heard so much from right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench about a 3½ per cent. growth rate in the past. They always said that this was not enough, and now they ought to come and tell us what they mean. We ought to discuss the serious level of unemployment. If we have a hard January we


can expect a much more serious situation.
I have mentioned the mood of the people. We ought to be debating the high level of emigration and the feelings of so many people who do not want to stay in this country with its high level of taxation, which is no inducement for them to stay. We ought to be discussing the serious flight from money which is making people do everything they can to get out of holding money. Industry is in a turmoil. It is not made any better by the activities of the right hon. Lady the First Secretary of State. She reminds me, the way she goes round organising industry and the trade unions, of a sort of "Lily the Pink"—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can tell us what the Minister reminds him of in one of the debates we are to have if we come back earlier.

Mr. Jopling: We are told that the dispute over building workers' pay has been settled. Parliament ought to know this as soon as possible and debate this. We do lot know which side has changed its mind. I do not mind whether we stay on next week or come back earlier. Hon. Members opposite sit on their bottoms and just make noises, but this is an important matter and we should know what the Secretary of State is doing.
We have had economic crises ever since the Government came to power, and for that reason one could argue that we should not have a recess at all. But there has not been a moment in the last four years when the situation has been as serious as it is now. This is the reason for the demand that Parliament should not go off for four weeks when these important matters are undebated and unresolved.
The Government do not command the respect and confidence of the world. Certainly they do not command the respect and confidence of people at home. We know, and the nation knows, that they should go. Parliament seems unable to make them go. Parliament should use its remaining influence to try to keep an eye on the Government and to force them to behave in such a way that the confidence and the respect which has been lost can be restored to some extent.

6.31 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I am sorry that my neighbour the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) attacked my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State. He called her "Lily the Pink." If he has any knowledge of popular music he will know that yesterday "Lily the Pink" was "Top of the Pops". Therefore, the hon. Gentleman was in fact paying tribute to my right hon. Friend.
I cannot possibly deal with every point which has been raised, but I will deal with as many as I can. If I miss some points, it is not because I wish to be discourteous, but I will write to hon. Members and take up matters with which I do not deal.
The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) referred to Anguila. I am grateful for his courteous note. He asked whether we would send a Minister to Anguila before 8th January. I cannot say that my right hon. Friend will respond by carrying out his request, but I will convey the hon. Gentleman's view to him. I recognise that, although this is a small island, it is important.
The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers) argued that we should not have a recess. He said that confidence in the rô le of Parliament had been sapped. I cannot accept that. He asked for a debate to take place on certain aspects of the economy. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) took up this theme. I am glad two hon. Members opposite thought that speeches of the kind which the hon. Gentleman made were too gloomy and pessimistic. I do not know whether he reads his speeches—I suspect that he does—but I beg him to read tomorrow the speech which he made today. It was a gloomy speech. I was sorry that the hon. Member for Westmorland, who is normally such a cheerful fellow, took up the hon. Gentleman's theme. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) that we can take pride in our achievements. I believe that, given time, the achievements in industry will be recognised.
It is proper that hon. Members should exert their traditional right to press the Leader of the House and the Government


on policies and to ask for early statements and early decisions to be made. That tradition has been followed today. However, I cannot accept that there is, as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds said, a constitutional crisis. This is frenzied talk which does no good.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) asked about the Falkland Islands. I cannot add to what was said in the debate. Some hon. Members objected to the fact that other subjects—for example, Biafra—were discussed. It was right that Biafra should be discussed. I thought that the reply of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was adequate. The hon. Gentleman also referred to stocks of foreign cheese in this country. Only today my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) had a Question down to the Minister of Agriculture asking for a statement. Yesterday, the National Farmers Unions and the Milk Marketing Boards submitted to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade an application for the imposition of anti-dumping or countervailing duties on certain imported cheese. My right hon. Friend has told the Minister of Agriculture that the application will be considered as speedily as possible.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: The right hon. Gentleman has just said that a decision about imported cheese will be made as soon as possible. Will it be made within a matter of days, before the House rises?

Mr. Peart: I cannot say. The Minister will take note of what has been said and I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman is informed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) referred to a dispute in his constituency. I was not aware that it had lasted so long. I will have a word with my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State about it. I know that it is giving my hon. Friend concern, but it is a constituency matter and I hope that he will have a conversation with my right hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), in a strange and typical speech, supported the Motion. He said that we were punch drunk. [HON. MEMBERS: "He has gone."] The hon. Gentleman is not here; he has been

knocked out. I am glad of his support, even though it be for different reasons.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) raised the important question of the Middle East. I agree that it is a very serious matter that people in that part of the world should be fighting each other. Government policy is designed to achieve peace in that area. It would be wrong to reject the Motion because of the difficult situation there. We must try to achieve peace, and that is the Government's intention.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) referred to the closure of the Carlisle-Edinburgh railway line. I will convey his views to the Minister. I know that the hon. Gentleman has tabled a Question on this impending closure, and there will be an answer to it on Thursday. I cannot go further than that.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) asked the Prime Minister and the Treasury for more information. We always try to oblige him. We cannot accede to all his requests, but I note what he said. Perhaps he will have a word with me later.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) raised the important matter of teachers and I will not get involved in an argument on this subject, which has been debated. It was recently debated on two occasions—on the Adjournment on 22nd October and on a Motion to withdraw the Schools (Scotland) Code (Amendment No. 1) Regulations, 1968, on 6th November. I accept that, from the point of view of hon. Members, this is important, but I thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) gave a very effective reply. However, I understand that the Secretary of State intends to make a full reply to Questions on this topic tomorrow, so I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I must apologise to my right hon. Friend for having left the Chamber for a few minutes, because I was called to an urgent telephone call, but I have been here for the whole debate.

Mr. Peart: I accept my hon. Friend's sincere apology. Perhaps he and I could


have a word later about some of his points.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) mentioned dairy products. I accept what he said, that the future of the Egg Marketing Board is important for the industry, and I can understand his concern for a decision, but there are still difficult matters to be considered. However, I will convey the views of the House to my right hon. Friend. He also mentioned secondary education in his constituency, road improvements, and particularly mental health treatment affecting teenagers. I would only remind hon. Members that when they press me they must remember that they are asking for much more public expenditure. I have listed many of the points and could return to them on another occasion.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) made a vigorous speech, and I am most grateful to him. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) mentioned a debate on Biafra and also spoke of the Select Committee on Agriculture and other matters. I note what he has said, but it was not an argument for rejecting the Motion.
The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) also asked me to consider a debate on Biafra, as well as the need for a statement on and a public inquiry into the city of London, and added to that the Hornsey College of Art and Northern Ireland. I am afraid that that was not an argument against the Motion—

Mr. John Lee: I also mentioned Rhodesia, which is a much more important matter.

Mr. Peart: Yes, my hon. Friend also mentioned people who are held in gaol in Rhodesia under the threat of execution. I know that this is important, but he has stressed it and I will convey his views to my right hon. Friend. But that is not an argument against going into Recess.
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) mentioned Scottish teachers, egg marketing and the closure of railway works in his constituency. I have noted what he said and I will convey his views. He also pressed his point of view strongly again

about British Standard Time, but I am afraid that we cannot change that during the Recess. However, his point of view is considered.
The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Alan Lee Williams) made some interesting points about the Upminster-Romford railway line and the importance of the Thames lighterage industry, as well as the need for investment grants for Thames river boats. They are important matters, even though with a constituency bias. I note them, and I thank him for his tribute as well.
I understand what the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) was trying to argue. I have spoken to the hon. Member about this and know that he is concerned, as are all hon. Members, about the interests of Parliament and a developing Parliamentary democracy. I know from my conversations with him that he is a reformer. I cannot deploy an argument on this tonight, however. He also mentioned the currency problem and the rate of investment in industry, but I was glad that he said that there is no gloom and depression in industry. His speech was a direct reply to that of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) and I am most grateful for what he said. I am glad that that point was taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence).
I have dealt with the point of the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) about Scottish teachers, which is an important matter—

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Can the right hon. Gentleman clear up one point? He said that the Secretary of State would be answering questions tomorrow. Can he assure us that his answers will be oral answers?

Mr. Peart: I have only had this information handed to me. I will look at the matter, but perhaps the hon. Member will have a word with me about it later. I have said that my right hon. Friend would answer questions on this.
The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) made a vigorous speech, but was much too gloomy. I hope that he will enjoy his Christmas Recess. He is not usually gloomy but he was tonight. I do not think that one can argue that, because


of a meeting at Chequers and because it has been mentioned that there will be another meeting of the National Economic Development Council on 14th January, hon. Members should not have a Recess of the kind that we propose—

Mr. Biffen: Would the right hon. Gentleman like to send me happily away for Christmas by giving the House an assurance that there will be placed in the Library a transcript of the paper submitted by the Government at that conference, the general sense of which is reported in today's Financial Times?

Mr. Peart: I am amazed at the hon. Member making that sort of request. I am sure that he would never have asked it of his own Administration. When there are private discussions with industry, if there is a need for a Press statement afterwards, that is sensible, but a request for the publication of Government papers is not reasonable.
The hon. Member said that international monetary problems do not stand still. Of course they do not; no one has said that. Even if we had a short Recess, we should still face these problems. They

will always be there and the Government earnestly desire stability. This depends on good will all around. For that reason, I thought that his argument was rather thin.

My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) mentioned regional policy, which is a very important matter, and also the nuclear energy industry, the manpower needs of science and the position of a railway line affecting his area. He also mentioned Nigeria. I have noted what he said. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) also mentioned education and rising prices. My hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire made a positive appeal to hon. Members and I compliment him on his speech. I have dealt with the points raised by the hon. Member for Westmorland.

In case I do not have an opportunity on Thursday, may I wish a merry Christmas to all hon. Members?

Question put,
That this House, at its rising on Friday, do adjourn till Monday, 20th January.

The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 41.

Division No. 43.]
AYES
[6.50 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Carmichael, Neil
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ford, Ben


Alldritt, Walter
Chapman, Donald
Forrester, John


Allen, Scholefield
Coe, Denis
Fowler, Gerry


Armstrong, Ernest
Coleman, Donald
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Ashley, Jack
Conlan, Bernard
Galpern, Sir Myer


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Gardner, Tony


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Garrett, W. E.


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Dalyell, Tam
Ginsburg, David


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Barnes, Michael
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Baxter, William
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Beaney, Alan
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Gregory, Arnold


Bence, Cyril
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Dempsey, James
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Dewar, Donald
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Bidwell, Sydney
Dobson, Ray
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)


Binns, John
Doig, Peter
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bishop, E. S.
Driberg, Tom
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Blackburn, F.
Dunn, James A.
Hannan, William


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dunnett, Jack
Harper, Joseph


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Boston, Terence
Eadie, Alex
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Edelman, Maurice
Haseldine, Noman


Boyden, James
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hazell, Bert


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Bradley, Tom
Ellis, John
Heffer, Eric S.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
English, Michael
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Ennals, David
Hilton, W. S.


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Ensor, David
Hooley, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Buchan, Norman
Faulds, Andrew
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Howie, W.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Huckfield, Leslie


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Cant, R. B.
Foley, Maurice
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)




Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Rose, Paul


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Millan, Bruce
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Hunter, Adam
Miller, Dr. M, S.
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Hynd, John
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Molloy, William
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Moonman, Eric
Silverman, Julius


Jeger, George (Goole)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Skeffington, Arthur


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Slater, Joseph


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Small, William


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Snow, Julian


Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)
Moyle, Roland
Spriggs, Leslie


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Judd, Frank
Murray, Albert
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Kelley, Richard
Newens, Stan
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Kenyon, Clifford
Norwood, Christopher
Swingier, Stephen


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Oakes, Gordon
Symonds, J. B.


Lawson, George
Ogden, Eric
Taverne, Dick


Lead bitter, Ted
Oram, Albert E.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Ledger, Ron
Orbach, Maurice
Tinn, James


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Orme, Stanley
Tomney, Frank


Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Tuck, Raphael


Lee, John (Reading)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Varley, Eric G.


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Paget, R. T.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Palmer, Arthur
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Park, Trevor
Wallace, George


Lipton, Marcus
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Lomas, Kenneth
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Loughlin, Charles
Pavitt, Laurence
Weitzman, David


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Wellbeloved, James


McCann, John
Pentland, Norman
Whitaker, Ben


MacColl, James
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Macdonald, A. H.
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Wilkins, W. A.


McGuire, Michael
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Mackie, John
Probert, Arthur
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Mackintosh, John P.
Randall, Marry
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Maclennan, Robert
Rankin, John
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rees, Merlyn
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Macpherson, Malcolm
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Winnick, David


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Robertson, John (Pa'sley)
Woof, Robert


Manuel, Archie
Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)



Mapp, Charles
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Marks, Kenneth
Roebuck, Roy
Mr. Ioan L. Evans and


Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Mr. Neil McBride.


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy






NOES


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Goodhew, Victor
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Gower, Raymond
Pounder, Rafton


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Grieve, Percy
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bessell, Peter
Hordern, Peter
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Biffen, John
Iremonger, T. L.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Biggs-Davison, John
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Jopling, Michael
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)


Booth, Albert
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Lane, David
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Wright, Esmond


Cary, Sir Robert
MacArthur, Ian
Younger, Hn. George


Costain, A. P.
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)



Dean, Paul
McMaster, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Emery, Peter
Marten, Neil
Mr. Eldon Griffiths and


Fortescue, Tim
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. David Crouch.

EMPLOYEES' SECURITY

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Eric Moonman: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish machinery for the regular supply of information by employers on all matters affecting or likely to affect employment both to their employees and to the Department of Employment and Productivity; to set up a security

fund within each industry for redundancy purposes; and for connected matters.
There is considerable interest and anxiety among large numbers of people at all levels in industry about the social and personnel consequences of company reorganisation and mergers. Since August, 1965, there have been about 1,500 mergers in Britain. Several trade union leaders—and growing public opinion—have suggested a code of conduct to deal with manpower.
Two issues arise from this suggestion. The first is whether a code of conduct, of work practice, is realistic, and the second is the question who should apply it and oversee it. On the first question, a code of conduct would provide a "direction" for employers and employees. More important, it would enable them to prepare, in a detailed and practical way, for the manpower of a business alongside plans for the production, marketing and distribution of the goods at times of rapid change. This seems essential, particularly at a time of rapid growth.
On the second question—about who should apply it—one thing is certain: the social and personnel consequences of mergers and takeovers cannot simply be left to the individual firm to sort out for itself. While I recognise that a number of companies have shown great compassion when they have had to make a number of their employees redundant, in the main we have found that particularly the medium and small-sized firms have been frustrated by the size of the problem in terms of human relations and what it means to the employee in terms of the traumatic experience involved. Not only must he change his job, environment and area, but he must also suffer a great deal of anxiety for weeks and possibly months.
Nor can we rely on the existing powers—or lack of them—of the Department of Employment and Productivity. A recent booklet issued by the Department shows up what can be done to deal with redundancy procedures. I suggest, however, that the real need is for a more active and dynamic approach to the problems of mergers and takeovers; and this booklet is, at best, a series of tips about what one might do at a time of organisational change. However, it does not meet the great worries and anxieties of employees.
I raise this matter at this time because—this was mentioned by an hon. Member in the earlier debate—there is likely to be a series of important mergers and takeovers during the Recess. Apart from that, there is a growing problem in terms of the rationalisation of industry and an upsurge in takeover activity. Any reading of the business Press justifies this view. More important in terms of evidence—I am not relying on the newspapers—company acquisitions this year will reveal, when the figures are available,

some striking features which will affect all aspects of our industrial life.
The post-war history of acquisitions fell into three phases; the period up to 1952, the period from 1953 to 1958 and the period from 1959 to 1966. I suggest that, based on the evidence that is available, the present period is likely to be the most serious of all. In absolute terms, there was a large increase in the volume of mergers and takeovers in 1964 and 1965 compared with 1963. Between 1954 and 1961 more than 500 quoted companies and no fewer than 2,900 companies were recorded as having been acquired. On a small sample taken in 1967—it consisted of any deal, bid or merger in just three months—311 acquisitions were noted, while the total value for these three months was £436 million.
There are other, indirect features which operate to cause major labour changes. In the 10 years up to 1964, employment in the metal manufacturing industries, engineering and ship building, rose by more than 400,000. In the same period in textiles employment dropped by 200,000. Thus, the movement between industries suggest that in the current year about 1 million employees will be affected. This is a serious problem and is worthy of our attention.
The view that the State should not intervene is strongly held by many of those who speak and write on this subject. Their argument is that if economic and commercial freedom is to be maintained, then each employer or trade union official must be free, within limits, to conduct his business. I do not accept this and it is emphatically not the view of the employee, whether he be in management or not, when he is thrown out of his job as a result of a takeover.
The aim of the Bill is to identify new standards of industrial behaviour at all levels of employment and, in particular to establish effective and fair provisions for all levels of employees whose specialist or craft skills are no longer suitable or necessary within an organisation due to rationalisation, mergers or contraction. Its provisions will ensure that the Department of Employment and Productivity will become more involved in these matters.
The Department will be informed by companies at the earliest possible moment


when organisational change is being considered. A representative of the Department will be required to visit the firm and discuss with management and employee representatives the procedures to be set up, where they do not exist, for continuous communication throughout the various stages of the organisational change. At all meetings, other than sub-committee and informal meetings, a representative of the Department will be invited to attend.
Employee representatives at these meetings will have the right to adequate information covering all aspects of the company's affairs, provided only that this does not seriously jeopardise the firm's commercial interests. Once an agreement has been reached, it will be registered with the Department of Employment and Productivity,
The history of industrial relations is bestrewn with discarded prescriptions offered to hopeful managements for their labour ills, but the most common reason for disappointment is the inability of management to recognise that factory environment is affected as much by the past as by present social circumstances.
I ask for the support of hon. Members for the Bill which, despite its modest intentions, may carry us a little further along the road to making industrial relations more efficient. The worker's rô le is not an optional icing on the cake in management's decision-making. It is one of the essential features of industrial reorganisation and change.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Moonman, Mr. Booth, Mr. Christopher Price, Mr. Wilkins, and Mr. Willey.

EMPLOYEES' SECURITY

Bill to establish machinery for the regular supply of information by employers on all matters affecting or likely to affect employment both to their employees and to the Department of Employment and Productivity; to set up a security fund within each industry for redundancy purposes; and for connected matters, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 28th March and to be printed. [Bill 55.]

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT (LONDON) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

7.8 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Richard Marsh): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Since the debate is taking place a few minutes behind time, I will endeavour to make my speech as brief as possible. However, hon. Members will recognise that while this is, I hope, a non-controversial Measure in the party political sense, it is an extremely important one.
We had a debate on the commuter problem of London only a fortnight ago. It emerged from that debate that the problems of London are very big and special to London. In an average working day, there are about 7 million journeys to or from work in London, about 2½ million of them to or from the central area. These are only journeys to work. Apart from these, there are business, shopping and leisure journeys, and the vast transport needs of industry and commerce which must be catered for in a large capital city.
There is no doubt that this is a most serious problem and that it is getting worse. This problem must be met, and I submit that there is only one way of meeting it, and that is on the lines which we are envisaging in the Bill; that is, to bring together all the inter-related elements—public transport, highways and traffic—so that there can be comprehensive policies for planning, operations and financing across the whole range of transportation in London, policies which take into account the social and environmental problems which are inherent in developing transport to meet today's needs. The Bill is the most comprehensive piece of urban transport legislation ever to be introduced anywhere in the world. It covers in one way or another the planning operation and, to a very large extent, the finances of road and rail transport, highways and traffic, in one of the largest urban areas in the world.
In taking the House through the Bill I shall obviously have to refer back frequently to the White Paper, "Transport


in London", Cmnd. 3686. Unfortunately, we have not had an opportunity yet of discussing the White Paper. Eighty per cent. of our population live in urban areas. Nearly half of them live in cities and very large towns. With the increasing demands of mobility, and the rapidly growing use of private cars, urban transport is the biggest single problem of those concerned with transport. This is true in Britain as it is in most other developed countries. For the conurbations outside London, our policies have been given effect to in the passenger transport authorities which are being set up under the Transport Act, 1968. In London we need to go further, and we are able to go further.
What we are doing, therefore, in the Bill, inevitably goes well beyond the P.T.A. concept, but it is none the less consistent with it. There are differences. Because of the existence of the new local government structure in London we have had no need to set up a separate P.T.A. The Greater London Council takes on, in relation to the London Transport undertaking, very similar responsibilities to those that the P.T.A. takes for its Executive.
Again, the new organisation and the financial arrangements we are making have to allow for the different history of the London Transport Board, the different scope of its activities compared with those of the authority most concerned—the Greater bus undertakings which are being amalgamated in the conurbations.
The proposals have been developed in very close consultation with the major authority most concerned—the Greater London Council. I am not able yet to tell the House the formal G.L.C. view of the proposals, since the Council has been discussing the Bill only this afternoon. There may be some point of detail on which we shall not be in total accord, but we have in the Bill kept very firmly to the letter and to the spirit of the agreement of principle reached with the leader of the Council a year ago and later endorsed by the Council itself.
As to changes in the responsibilities of the London Transport undertakings, much of the underlying thinking of the Bill derives from the Joint Review which

considered these matters under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend who is now the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security. I pay tribute to all those who were associated with that exercise.
The basic purpose of the Bill is to place the main responsibilities for transport in London where, in my view, they belong—with the people of London, through their elected representatives on the Greater London Council. We aim here to give the Council all the powers that it needs to carry out its job.
The key provision in the Bill is the duty placed on the Council in Clause 1 to
develop policies, and to encourage, organise and … carry out measures, which will promote the provision of integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities and services for Greater London.
Everything else in the Bill stems from this. The immediate practical application of this duty lies in the Council's obligation to prepare and publish transport plans for Greater London. What is important—and new—is that these will be plans for all aspects of transport prepared by a body with the powers needed to make the plans a reality.
The plans will be able to co-ordinate the efforts of those who provide public transport and those who determine, through traffic and parking measures, the environment in which public transport operates.
The Bill itself does not spell out the organisation necessary to put the new system into effect. In practice, new planning machinery will be set up under G.L.C. chairmanship on which representatives of the new Executive, the Railways Board and the Ministry of Transport will serve, consulting others as necessary.
It is through this machinery that the Greater London Council will have a rô le to play in connection with British Rail's suburban rail services. These will not be placed directly under the Council. Operationally, they are too closely linked with British Rail's long-distance and freight services. But it is right that the Council should be involved in planning for this network. The Bill provides for this involvement and enables the Council to take in due course a financial stake in the arrangements, also.
Within the formal drafting of Parts II and III lies one of the most dramatic parts of the Bill—the transfer of the London Transport Board from Whitehall to County Hall; from the Government to Londoners. I think that the House will agree that this new arrangement is logical and inevitable. The new London Transport Executive will be the body responsible for the day-to-day running of the bus and tube network in Greater London.
The smaller area—smaller, that is, than the present London Transport area—has been deliberately chosen, since it is regarded as the largest area over which the Council could exercise effective control over the very different elements of transport.
The relationship between the Executive and the Council will be broadly that which exists between the Government and a nationalised industry. Responsibility for day-to-day management will rest fairly and squarely with the Executive itself. There will be no question of the Council making itself the decisions which properly belong to management. The members of the Executive will be appointed by the Council, but the officers and staff will be appointed by the Executive itself. Since the point has been raised from time to time, I want to make it clear that these employees will not be local government servants. The Executive, as the employers, will be responsible for the machinery of staff negotiation on matters such as wages and conditions of service.
The most significant thing about the new London Transport—most significant, that is, for London travellers, anyhow—is the new financial and service obligations which will be placed upon the Executive. They derive directly from the work of the Joint Review, and the philosophy underlying them can be studied in the Report of the Directing Group.
A major difficulty of the London Board in the past has been that its two statutory duties—to pay its way and to provide an "adequate" system of passenger transport—are so framed as to be difficult to define and in practice impossible to reconcile. In the Bill, the overriding duty will be the financial one—to break even and to meet financial objectives set for

periods fixed by the Council. This duty will have to be met, since the Council will be obliged under Clause 7 to take whatever action it thinks necessary to ensure that the Executive can meet it.
Subject always to the financial duty, there will be a duty on the London Transport Executive, under Clause 5, to provide such services as best meet the needs of Greater London, again defined in accordance with principles laid down by the Council.
These duties are completely interlocking. What they mean in practical terms is that the Council will be able to decide on the broad standards of service to be provided and will have, in return, the responsibility of ensuring, in one way or another, that the London Transport undertaking remains viable.
I want to mention a number of other special provisions. There is the question of manufacturing powers, which we have discussed from time to time in the Chamber. London Transport has traditionally done more in this field and has facilities for doing more, than the undertakings which will make up the new passenger transport executives. It has been inhibited in the past both in not being able to make full use of its resources and in its relations with its suppliers.
The Bill, therefore, proposes that, subject to direction by the Council, the Executive should have powers to manufacture for itself, for its subsidiaries, for the various members of the nationalised transport "family", and for the Council. London Transport will not be inhibited, as it was under the 1962 Act, from manufacturing vehicle chassis and bodies.
I must also mention at this stage the powers in relation to bus services that the Executive will have. The basic purpose is to place the London Transport Executive, within Greater London, in very much the same position as a passenger transport executive. The L.T.E. will, like the P.T.E.s, have, within Greater London, special rights in relation to what the Bill defines as "London bus services"—these are the ordinary stage and express services. No operator other than the London Transport Executive will be able to run such services, except under agreement with the Executive.
Existing services are, of course, protected under the provisions of Clause 23


and Schedule 4, and there is no question of the new arrangements depriving existing operators of services they are already running.
The special rights of the Executive apply, of course, within Greater London only. The House will have noticed that the operating powers of the Executive extend much wider than this area and, indeed, there is no geographical limit. This is because the size of London and its importance as the capital city makes it difficult to judge where a limit should be set which could be certain of not impeding at some time in future provision by London Transport of services genuinely intended to meet the needs of London.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman has made an important statement that people operating existing services will not have their right to operate taken away. But I understand that Schedule 4 provides a conditional right to operate those services. Surely that is a contradiction.

Mr. Marsh: I shall come to that point later. In so far as they run stage and express bus services outside Greater London, the Executive will be subject, among like any other operator, to control by the Traffic Commissioners. We want to enable the Executive, like any other bus undertaking, to make the best commercial use of its resources. The special rights of the Executive within Greater London do not extend to excursions and tour traffic, so that, in future, the Executive and other operators will be competing on equal terms subject only to the licensing system.
I turn now to the rô le of the G.L.C. in relation to the Executive. The main powers that the Council will have, apart from the power to appoint, will be to pay grant to the Executive for any purpose it thinks fit and to issue directions to the Executive. This gives the Council the right to prescribe the policy lines to be followed and to take financial responsibility for its decisions. This is very important, because if the Council wishes the Executive to do something that will cause it to fall short of its financial targets, it will itself have to take financial responsibility for it. The Council might wish, for example, the Executive to run a

series of services at a loss for social or planning reasons. It might wish to keep fares down at a time when costs are rising and there is no scope for economies. It is free to do so. But it has to bear the cost.
The Bill also gives the Council other powers of control, especially over finance. The Council will have to approve the Executive's budgets—its capital and revenue accounts—and will have control of the Executive's borrowing. It will also be able to institute reviews of the organisation of the Executive and, if necessary, give directions to the Executive to implement changes which the Council decides are needed as a result. These reviews are not intended to cover detailed questions of management but broad questions of structure and organisation—for example, the extent to which the Executive operates direct or through subsidiaries.
Another specific power of the Council relates to the disposal or acquisition of particular services. Given the Council's responsibilities, it is right that it should be able to look at the pattern of services operated by the Executive. But hon. Members will see that this power, in Clause 20, cannot be exercised in such a way as to take away from the Executive its rô le as the main provider of transport in Greater London. Although in general we want to keep Ministerial intervention in the affairs of the Executive to a minimum, it is reasonable to build in this safeguard.
The last of the new responsibilities of the Council are those relating to fares in London. For various reasons, most of them historical ones connected with the monopoly situation of London Transport, people living in or near London have for many years been able to appeal to the Transport Tribunal. This has been unique to London. With the major changes in responsibility and organisation now proposed, this is no longer appropriate.
For the services of the new Executive—underground and bus services—the Council has all along asked for full control over fares. The Government accept that this is right. One could not impose upon a body the obligations of running an organisation of this size and refuse it control of revenue raising. It is consistent with what is proposed for bus


services in P.T.A. areas, where fares will no longer be subject to the Traffic Commissioners but will be determined by the overall authority, the P.T.A. Outside the G.L.C. area bus fares will, of course, be subject to the Traffic Commissioners.
For surface train services, the House will be aware of the degree of commercial fredom the Government's policy insists on for the railways and of the view of the Prices and Incomes Board strongly in favour of a commercial approach by the railways. In these circumstances, it cannot be right that Londoners alone should have a tribunal which may, in interpreting its terms of reference, decide in particular circumstances to hold fares below what is economically desirable. The consequences fall not upon the London traveller nor upon the London ratepayer but upon the taxpayers throughout the country. We have therefore, thought it right to provide for discontinuing the London fares functions of the Transport Tribunal. Transport undertakings in London will, of course, continue to be subject, like all others, to the Government's prices and incomes policy.
The arrangements I have so far described are mainly those that will apply within London. But the Bill goes a great deal wider, since it provides for handing over the country or "green" buses and the Green Line coaches to the National Bus Company. Part III of the Bill provides the machinery for handover, on standard lines which have been followed in the past in other contexts.
I want to make it clear that there need be no fears among staff affected by the handover about their future. The Bill provides for transfer of pension rights and for compensation if anyone is adversely affected by the change. The National Bus Company has already set up a company—London Country Bus Services Limited—to receive the "green bus" organisation on vesting day. This is the company that the N.B.C. proposes to designate for the purpose under Clause 16.
It may be, of course, that, in the longer term, the N.B.C. will want to make changes in this arrangement. There are problems, though they are problems which the present country bus management seems to deal with satisfactorily, about operating over an area which has been described by one of my officials as "a

demented Polo mint, with a hole in the centre of up to 20 miles in diameter."
There is no question of any immediate transfer of the staff of the country buses to individual companies of the N.B.C. when the Bill comes into effect. Any changes will, of course, be subject to discussion with the staff in the normal way. In the country bus area, the Bill provides for existing services to continue automatically after the hand over, subject in the normal way to control by the Traffic Commissioners. In future, local authorities in outer London areas will, through the mechanism of public sittings and of appeal, be able to be closely involved in the form and frequency of services in a way that, in the past, they have not been.

Mr. Stan Newens: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that the standards of remuneration as well as of pension rights of staff will be safeguarded in the fringe areas which will be lopped off, since there is considerable disquiet and anxiety among the staff and it is essential that these should be set at rest from the start.

Mr. Marsh: As I have said, the Bill, as with nearly all other Bills of this type, contains Clauses for the protection of the staff in the usual way, and the fears which my hon. Friend quite rightly refers to are not likely to be justified in the event.
The transfer of the L.T.B. undertaking, and especially the major part of it which is to go to the G.L.C, inevitably has important financial implications. In the course of negotiations over the present proposals, the G.L.C. has made it clear that the undertaking must be viable at the time of transfer of responsibility. Viability is agreed to mean that the undertaking should pay its way with sufficient margin to create in the first year a reserve of £2 million and maintain it thereafter at that minimum level at least. This is the situation which the G.L.C. has insisted must be reached if it is to be willing to take over the London Transport undertaking.
The cost of urban transport should normally be met locally, whether through fares paid by the users, or otherwise. But special considerations apply to London. Therefore, a Government contribution to setting the undertaking on a sound financial basis is in my view fully justified. The Government's contribution


consists mainly in the capital write-off of 90 per cent. of the Board's debt to the Government. Putting this in terms of a capital sum, the proposed write-off should amount, on present estimates, to about £244 million, depending on the time of transfer. In terms of annual interest payments, this should amount to a Government contribution of about £11 million per year.
All this is over and above the assistance which the London Transport Board has had on revenue account over the past few years and which it will continue to receive until the time of transfer. By that time, these revenue grants may amount to about £40 million, and, whatever complaints there may be, I think that Londoners have been spared some pretty considerable fare increases in recent years.
Even with all this Government help, however, there will still be a substantial gap to be bridged to make the London transport undertaking viable, and studies have been made by my Department and the London Transport Board—studies with which Greater London Council officials have been associated—to assess this "viability gap". Officials agree that the best estimate which can be made at the present time, on the basis of the assumptions adopted in the London Transport Board's forecasts, is that the gap will be about £8 million in the first year of the new undertaking.
As I have made clear, the Greater London Council does not intend to enter into any commitment, for example, to help bridge the gap by using the subsidy powers it will have. That being so, fares will have to be increased by the autumn of next year. The form of the increases is not yet certain. London Transport is preparing proposals designed to raise the necessary sum of about £8 million. The Government intend to refer these proposals to the Prices and Incomes Board, probably early in the new year, so that the Board can consider the pattern of fares increases necessary to achieve viability.
I now come to Part V—the provisions on highways and traffic. Our main object here is to strengthen the powers of the G.L.C. so that it can carry out more effectively its responsibilities as the "strategic" transport authority for Lon-

don. In the three and a half years since the London Government reorganisation came into effect, defects with the highways and traffic powers have become apparent which have to be remedied if the G.L.C. is to be an effective transport authority.
First, we propose to make all principal roads in Greater London the responsibility of the Greater London Council. Principal roads are those roads—other than trunk roads, which are a Ministry of Transport responsibility—which are so significant for traffic that my Department pays specific grant towards their construction and improvement. Under the 1963 London Government Act, only some 550 miles of the 870 or so miles of principal roads have so far been the responsibility of the Greater London Council. The remainder, over 300 miles, have been divided between the London Boroughs, which also look after some 6,800 miles of local roads. But roads important enough to through traffic to be designated as principal roads should clearly be the responsibility of the "strategic" transport authority. We therefore propose to increase the G.L.C.'s responsibilities by these 300 or so further miles of road. For this, however, there is a quid pro quo. The London Boroughs have found some of the planning requirements under the 1963 Act irksome, particularly those about referring development applications to the G.L.C. Although the Greater London Council needs to control the construction and improvement of principal roads, there is no reason why the full system of development control which has accompanied their highway responsibilities should continue as at present.
In planning matters, the London Boroughs, as the local planning authorities, have an obviously important rô le. The Bill therefore proposes that the principal roads of Greater London can be divided into two categories for development control purposes. One category will comprise roads so critical to the network that, either because of their present traffic importance or their need for development, the Greater London Council must continue, for the time being at least, to control development. The second category will be roads where determination of development applications will be left to the London Boroughs—subject to their operating, for the treatment of the length


of road in question, within a framework laid down by the G.L.C. I expect approximately 300 miles to come into the first category, and roads can, of course, be transferred from one category to the other as necessary. Although, therefore, the G.L.C.'s highway authority responsibilities will be increased, its control over development will be relaxed in favour of the Boroughs, and we intend that these two complementary provisions should come into effect together.
I also propose, jointly with the City Corporation and the Greater London Council, to undertake a special review of the status of the principal roads in the City of London.
The other really important provisions of Part V of those relating to parking, which is one of the most vital elements in traffic policies today. For on-street parking, we propose to strengthen the Greater London Council's existing control to facilitate the introduction of controlled parking schemes, especially the proposed Inner London parking area. The proposals for off-street parking, however, are entirely new.
The Greater London Council realises that if it is to operate effective traffic policies it must have power over off-street as well as on-street parking, and the 1963 Act is, in this respect, just not good enough. As traffic and transport authority, the Council needs to be able to ensure a proper balance between short-term and long-term parking supply; and to provide, if necessary, for sufficient off-street parking space to be available for residents in an area where on-street parking is completely controlled. And off-street parking provision may need to be related to the capacity of the roads around it, too.
It might seem to the House to be easy to deal with these matters by some sort of general policy objectives, but the only way to ensure that something actually happens is to introduce a licensing system. This is what the G.L.C. has asked for—and, I think, has rightly asked for—with the proviso that the licensing should be operated by the Boroughs. We agree. So the Bill provides that car parks available to the public for payment may be licensed by the London Boroughs in accordance with requirements prescribed by the Greater London Council.
Let me say at once that we do not envisage a car park licensing system coming into effect throughout Greater London the day the Measure comes into operation. Licensing of all car parks may seem to be a heavy-handed control, but it is intended to be exercised intelligently—and only in those areas where the traffic situation requires it.
The Bill provides, of course, for compensation if an operator is refused a licence, or if a licence is granted only on terms which damage his business.
Finally, in Part V there are Clauses which tidy up and improve, in keeping its new responsibilities, traffic responsibilities which the G.L.C. already has under the 1963 Act. An example is Clause 32. I intend to relinquish my present control over every individual pedestrian crossing in Greater London, and to introduce a quota system of crossings based on population which I have already announced for the rest of the country. It seems to me to be most extraordinary that any Minister should be responsible for every pedestrian crossing, and that is at least one piece of responsibility that I have been able to get rid of with everyone's approval.
I think that I have given the general picture of what we are aiming at. The Bill marks the end of one chapter in the transport history of London—the chapter which was originally written by a man who was for some years a friend and neighbour, and who was, perhaps, our greatest Minister of Transport—Herbert Morrison. The 1933 Act stood the test of time extraordinarily well, and it is no discredit to it that the vast changes of the past 35 years have at last made it out of date. The proposals in the Bill will put London once again well ahead of the rest of the world in transport and, with that in mind, I commend the Bill to the House.

7.39 p.m.

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: We are debating this Bill on the same day as Greater London Council has been debating it on the other side of the river. The Minister said that he thought it a non-controversial Bill and of course it is, in parts. I understand that Mr. Ted Castle, on the other side of the river, referred to it as the product of a shotgun marriage—evidently between his wife and Mr. Desmond Plummer. One would expect such a Measure to have in it some


things objectionable from our point of view and there are one or two things which we shall have to contest in Committee, but I do not think anyone will quarrel with the main purpose, although there is often a vast difference between a purpose and the method of achieving it.
The purpose of the Bill is to achieve a new concept in transport planning so that all aspects of transport, cars, buses, railways and parking can be related to each other and to the disposition of office blocks, factories, shops, houses and the routes taken by people to get to work. This obviously has to be carefully coordinated with land use. This should be the first experiment in co-ordination on this scale that we have ever had.
I shall go through the points I wish to raise rather more quickly than I had intended because a large number of hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. The Minister pointed out that the first duty of the Council is to make a transport plan. It also has to make other plans. One is due next year—a general development plan. I wish to sound two notes of caution. In making any transport arrangements I should have thought that the easiest part was to make a plan. Only when one has made a plan and published it do the real problems start because then one has to go through all the democratic processes and none of us wants main roads through our constituencies; we all want the advantages without any disadvantages. The difficulty is not in the making of a plan but in what happens afterwards.
My second note of caution is this. It may well happen to the G.L.C. as with the concentration of powers in any organisation that it becomes too cumbersome. It could then be as difficult to achieve co-operation between the constituent parts of the whole as between different organisations. We should be well advised not to expect too much in the early stages of the development of this concept.
The Minister selected certain parts of the Bill and commented on them. I should like to follow him in some ways and to refer to one of the main features of the Bill, the transfer of London Transport to the new Transport Executive. I shall make my comments under

the following headings, financial arrangements, duties, and powers. On the financial arrangements the right hon. Gentleman let off a little bombshell very quietly. Because this debate has come rather later in the day than we expected, the bomb went off without much of an explosion. It referred to fares, but I will deal first with the capital side. We are bound to look at this matter differently from the G.L.C. Quite rightly, the council's primary consideration has been that any extra burden arising from the Bill should not fall on its ratepayers. That is the angle from which the council should and did look at that matter.
We are transferring a great undertaking from one ownership to another and we have to look at it, not from the point of view of London's hon. Members, but of the nation as a whole. The Minister skated very quickly over some enormous figures. He pointed out that in capital we are transferring an undertaking for approximately one-tenth of its capital value. That is a very astonishing figure. We are writing off £244 million, but let no one be bemused by the easy phrase, "writing it off". It may be written off so far as concerns the G.L.C. and the Minister, but what remains when this accountancy transaction has taken place will be a block of Government securities of face value £244 million but worth nothing more than the paper they are written on, yet still drawing interest at the rate of £11 million a year.
I stress this because it is a literal example of how money invested in nationalised undertakings can become worth no more than the paper it is written on over a few years. The genera] taxpayer has to find that £11 million every year to service the Government securities. It will mean a permanent sub-sudy to London of £11 million a year from citizens over the rest of the country. Obviously we look at this differently from the G.L.C. No doubt London hon. Members will be delighted that this slice of capital has been written off, but it is not the only slice. If we add all the others written off by nationalised industries the sum comes to something in excess of £2,000 million—paper securities of £2,000 million no longer represented by assets.
I knew that if I did not bring this into the debate no one on the Government


side would do so, but it is a serious point. The Minister no doubt thought extremely long and seriously before transferring assets worth £270 million for a sum of £27 million, which is considerably less than the capital spent on those assets even in the last two years. He has written off the cost of the Victoria Line before it has come into operation. If Shell or I.C.I, said to a rival that it would sell off the whole of its works for one-tenth of the value, the shareholders would be after them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Normally one sells only a bankrupt undertaking for one-tenth of its value.

Mr. Marsh: Is not the logic of what the hon. Lady is saying—although I am not sure whether she is reaching a conclusion—that the only conclusion she can reach is that the fares increase ought to be twice as high as it otherwise will be?

Mrs. Thatcher: No, the conclusion I am reaching is that this is a Bill which the Minister is presenting to the House with his approval. It is for him to justify the action he has taken. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will justify that action in this light when he winds up the debate.
Usually when one sells an undertaking or transfers it at vastly less than capital value it is because the capital value has been lost, as in the case of coal mines which have been closed. The capital is no longer revenue-producing. The Minister mentioned the Blue Paper which points out that it cannot be said that the assets should be wrtten down to anything like the new capital value. Indeed, the Blue Paper goes out of its way on page 57 to point out that it cannot be argued that the bulk of depreciable assets
are no longer capable of earning their keep.
So the Minister is giving something valuable away for something very much less than its real value.
It may surprise the Minister to know that he is one of the first practical exponents of denationalisation by the Powell principle. If he reads the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), he will see that this is one kind of denationalisation which my right hon. Friend was advocating. I have some very pithy quotations with me, but time is

short so I will not read them. I commend them to the Minister. I warn him that this will be a very useful precedent when hon. Members change sides in the House and we consider denationalisation proposals. We shall remember the action taken by the Minister and consider it possible to denationalise undertakings at less than their book value.

Mr. Newens: Does the hon. Lady agree that there is a vast difference between transferring assets from one public authority to another and retaining them in public ownership and the transferring of assets to private ownership? Will she also agree that private enterprise is subsidised to the extent of over £2 million a day? When she is talking about how public enterprise is to be subsidised should not this be borne in mind?

Mrs. Thatcher: Private enterprise pays an enormous amount in taxes to subsidise other services. It does not make any difference whether one transfers from one public authority to another or to private enterprise. There is still a block of securities to be serviced and unrepresented by assets. I see that I have stimulated some interest in this matter which is more than the Minister did for quite a long time in his speech.
I come to some of the revenue provisions and to the Minister's description of viability when he said that we are to have another reference to the Prices and Incomes Board. This is not the first reference to the Prices and Incomes Board. The first time the reference was made, the recommendations of the Prices and Incomes Board were not followed. The Government made a reference which the Prices and Incomes Board reported on in March 1968 and the recommended increases did not then come into play.
On the first reference, the London Transport Board wanted a further £8·6 million. The figure is not very different from the figure mentioned by the Minister today. This was the point I wished to get across. The £8·6 million meant a 14 per cent. increase in fares. The Minister has agreed to make another £8 million available to make London Transport viable before it is handed over. That probably means an increase in fares, unless the structures are considerably changed, of 12 to 13 per cent. That is the kind of thing which he announced


today, but he gave no indication of how large an increase in fares might result from his figures.
It was interesting to note in the last Report of the Prices and Incomes Board that a 14 per cent. increase in fares only produces about a 9 per cent. increase in revenue. That is because by increasing fares a number of passengers are lost. Undoubtedly, what the Minister said will come as a shock to many travellers on London Transport.
Last time a reference was made, the Prices and Incomes Board listed four steps which might be taken to put the revenue up without recourse to further fare increases. First, making good losses from fraud; secondly, improved marketing; thirdly, cost reductions, such as the rescheduling and re-routing of services, the introduction of buses with one-man operation, which is already going ahead, and revision of existing agreements with the unions affecting overtime and working conditions; and, fourthly, reduction in non-productive and administrative workers. Even so, the Board came to the conclusion that £86 million at that time might not be enough and the Government granted less than the full increase. I sometimes wonder whether it would have been better if they had granted the full increase, because we might have got away without a massive increase on this particular round.

Mr. Marsh: It was not the Government. It was the Transport Tribunal, which is an independent judicial body.

Mrs. Thatcher: Perhaps I should just say that the recommendations of the Prices and Incomes Board were not accepted. Is the Minister saying that the data given to the Prices and Incomes Board are to raise a further £8 million per annum by increases in fares and revised structure in fares and that he will accept its recommendations? Is that what he is doing to make London Transport viable before it is handed over? Apparently we have now got it clear that he is bound to accept the Board's recommendations.

Mr. Marsh: No. With respect, the hon. Lady cannot bind the Government to accept anything which it has not seen from an independent body. It depends what it says.

Mrs. Thatcher: I wonder what the Minister is bound to do. He has put in a reference to the Prices and Incomes Board that it should make recommendations which will raise £8 million out of increases in fares. I think that we are agreed on that. The Minister said that the fares will probably be increased as from autumn next year. That will be about a year after the previous fare increases.
That completes the financial arrangements on the change over, capital and revenue wise—writing off nine-tenths and increases in fares of probably about 12 or 13 per cent. to produce the necessary income.
Some of the other aspects of the change over from the present Board to the Executive concern a change in duties. Under the old Act, London Transport had a duty, first, to provide an adequate service and, secondly, to break even. Under the change of ownership there will be no duty to provide an adequate service, but services which best meet the needs for the time being of Greater London, and the over-riding objective will be a financial one. That is, the Executive must not make a deficit two years in succession. The second year it will have to make up for the deficit of the first year and it will have to make sufficient to meet the outgoings in the second year as well.
I wonder whether I might question the Minister further on the financial objective. He said that if the Council decided that the Executive had to operate services which would make it uneconomic, the Council would have to provide a subsidy from the rates. What happens if a closure is put to the Minister and he decides not to grant it, nor to grant the money to keep the line open? The Minister has only taken discretionery powers to make a grant of money in lieu of a closure. He cannot be compelled to grant that money. One of two things would happen. Either the G.L.C. would have to make the grant from the rates because of the Minister's refusal to grant the closure, or the deficiency would have to be found by other transport users. Therefore, he is still taking—does the Minister wish to interrupt?

Mr. Marsh: No. I thought that the hon. Lady was making a comparison with a P.T.A.

Mrs. Thatcher: I thought that the Minister was trying to draw differences between the P.T.A.s and the G.L.C. It does not leave the latter totally free. They have to face the consequences of the Minister's action in the way they run the transport services.
Concerning powers, we are bound to come up against a little controversy, as the Minister indicated. I understand that earlier this afternoon the G.L.C. passed a recommendation in the following terms:
That the General Purposes Committee do take such action as may be necessary to secure the amendment of Clause 6 of the Transport (London) Bill 1968 to ensure that the powers of the London Transport Executive to engage in manufacture and trade are restricted to the minimum necessary to enable it to perform its statutory function as a public transport undertaking.
It is clear that at the moment the G.L.C. does not wish to have the extensive manufacturing powers granted to it under Clause 6.
I should like to make one or two comments about those manufacturing powers. The Minister will expect us to oppose some of them. The right hon. Gentleman referred particularly to the construction, manufacturing and producing powers in Clause 6 (1) (i). I have one special comment to make about those powers. Although certain of the other powers under that Clause are subject to the sanction that they should be run on commercial principles, there is no direction that the manufacturing powers should be run on commercial principles. The subsection is excluded from the sanction. As the Bill stands, it will enable the Executive to compete on an uneconomic basis with private industry and to deal with its subsidiaries and the other authorities on preferential terms. When the Parliamentary Secretary winds up the debate, if the Minister is giving these extensive powers, will he say why he is not asking the Executive to run them on commercial principles?
The Minister also referred to Clause 20. I understand that the second part of Clause 20 (1) (b) gives the Council power to direct the Executive virtually to take over any transport service or facility which for the moment is being provided by someone else. There is no protection that I can see for any private operator or anyone operating car park facilities in Greater London, because, under this

subsection, the Council could direct the Executive to take over those facilities, and there is virtually no protection.
The Minister also referred to one or two other changes between the old London Transport Board and the new London Transport Executive. One is that the general powers will be vastly increased, because the G.L.C. will be able to operate services, so far as I can see, from here to the end of the world if it wants to do so. These are the most extensive powers which I have ever seen in legislation and I do not know whether there is any precedent for this Clause.
Clause 6 (1) (a) says that the Executive shall have power
to carry passengers by any form of land or water transport (including in either case hovercraft) within, to or from Greater London;
This does not seem to fit in entirely with the principles in the Blue Paper that the area over which the new authority should operate should be smaller than the area over which the old L.T.B. operated. Paragraph 48 of the Blue Paper said:
The area served by the London Transport Board is much larger than Greater London. But the Government consider that the area in which the new Executive should have responsibility for public transport operations should in princple be Greater London.
The "principle" of Greater London was translated into, almost, the greater world. That at least is one respect in which the Blue Paper was not followed when it was converted into this green Bill.
The Minister will understand that we shall have to take up some of these matters further in Committee. I want to deal quickly with the relationship with British Railways because we had a debate recently on commuter services. The right hon. Gentleman has announced references to the Prices and Incomes Board with regard to London Transport. Does it follow from what the Board said at the beginning of its Report last time that similar increases will be made for British Railways services operating in the London area?
Normally, the principle is that British Railways fares are assimilated to London Transport fares. There is no question of viability arising from takeover, obviously, but in the White Paper, we are told that the London commuter area services are treated as a network and that the object is to achieve viability


by 1972. So the same phrase is coming in with regard to British Railways services in London as applies to London Transport. They must be viable by 1972, although British Rail will itself determine the fares in consultation with the G.L.C. Does the Minister expect that viability there will mean the same as viability in the London Transport area, and will mean that fares will go up?
I turn now to the Bill's effect on the motorist. We agreed the other day in our debate that it is advisable to attract some peak-hour travellers out of cars on to the public transport, but the word was "attract", not "compel", "coerce" or "force". We are now getting a less attractive public transport immediately, from the prospect of the fares increase. At the same time, the Minister is bringing in a Bill which gives very extensive powers over parking. So we will have less attractive public transport and very powerful measures over where motorists may park in Greater London. This means following policies which attempt to force him from his car onto public transport.
I refer particularly, of course, to the off-street car-parking provisions of Clause 36. Again, the Minister skated very lightly over this, saying only that the G.L.C. wanted licensing powers. This is obvious, but it is what he has tacked on to those powers which goes far further than licensing. He has not merely included powers to license off-street parking but has tacked on considerable powers in that Clause as to exactly how a particular car-parking facility should be used, what time it should open and close, and the availability of staff to supervise the parking place. He has taken powers over the accounts and other records to be kept, and to enter and make copies of or take extracts from any accounts or other records kept in connection with the operation of that parking place. These are draconian powers and are quite unnecessary if all he wants to do is have the power to licence car-parking facilities.
I notice that many of the motoring organisations and National Car Parks, which has about 100 car parks in London, are protesting vigorously about this. I am sure that the Minister will agree that, until now, they have co-operated both with him and with the local authorities in every way to produce the required kind of

off-street facilities and that they have particularly co-operated with Westminster recently in the provision of the kind of facilities needed in that area.
Some of these powers seem far too extensive ever to be taken in a Bill like this. I notice that the R.A.C.—

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Would the right hon. Lady also agree that National Car Parks have not really co-operated with the public?

Mrs. Thatcher: I have always found them very co-operative with the public whenever I have used their car parks. Even if the hon. Member's remark were true, it does not seem a very good reason for the powers taken in this Clause.
According to a document sent to us this morning by the R.A.C,
Similar proposals have previously been made by the Glasgow Corporation in a Provisional Order presented to Parliament last year, but these were withdrawn after the motoring organisations had petitioned against this objectionable scheme.
I hope that some of the powers now will be considerably reduced.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will also report to us on some of the other matters with regard to parking which were published in the Sunday Times of 1st December, 1968. It was said that an Amendment was expected to this Clause to widen the powers over parking not only to the licensed car parks but also to the West End hotels, and that the Amendment would include some control over the use of their garages. This is absurd and is taking control much too far. It will not help the motorist and I do not find the idea attractive of a Ministry or any official being able to differentiate between an essential and non-essential parker.
The object is to stop long-term parking and turn everything over to short-term. It is all very well for us to agree to that—I do not necessarily agree—but we at least have long-term parking facilities here, so we should not—[An HON. MEMBER: "We are very lucky."] Yes, we are very lucky, but we should not necessarily stop the provision of this same thing for other people when we need it so much.
The Londoner will not look at the powers in the Bill, the integration, the co-ordination or even the change of ownership. What he will want to know


is whether the buses will run better and the trains will run on schedule, and whether he will get better facilities to take his car into London. He will probably still write to his M.P. to complain. I take it that he will now have to write to his G.L.C. councillor or to the consultative committee of the G.L.C.
I sometimes wonder whether councillors, who are voluntary after all, know what they are letting themselves in for with the very extensive postbag which they will get from London Transport users. The consultative committee which is to be set up has no power over fares or closures, but we shall of course have to tell compainants, "The powers no longer reside in us but with the G.L.C, except in so far as the Minister still has residual powers." We shall be passing great powers not only to councillors but to officials, because councillors have not a great deal of time and people over there have not yet got much experience—they cannot have—of running transport concerns, as distinct from traffic management.
In theory, if the Ministry of Transport staff contains people who were dealing with London Transport, that staff should be reduced and the Greater London Council staff increased by the same number. I hope that there will not be an increase in G.L.C. staff without a reduction at the Ministry.
The Bill undoubtedly provides a great opportunity for planning improved transport services in London. We shall object to some of the powers and attempt to modify others. But the Bill will not be judged by the public on the general plan. In the end, we and the public will have to judge on the results, and they will take a long time to achieve.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. William Molloy: It was remarkable that it was only at the tail end of the speech of the hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) that she found a word or two to say about the general travelling public. Before that, she seemed to concentrate on high financial philosophy. If the people standing in the rain in the bus queues tonight had heard that sort of speech, they would have given up hope of ever having a decent London Transport system. Her

speech was appalling. There was not a touch of humanity in it about the big problems of people trying to move from one place to another—going to their place of work and travelling home from it and doing social travelling.
The hon. Lady even seemed to argue all ends to the middle. To her, when my right hon. Friend spoke about garages, the proposal would drive the motorist off the road, because it would be much too expensive. But it seemed to me that it would make a contribution to the viability which she said would not exist without increased charges for this, that and the other. When my right hon. Friend says that he will try to increase the inflow of finance to London Transport, that is wrong. When he takes opposite steps, that is also wrong. I hope that the hon. Lady's colleagues at County Hall have a much more humane, adventurous and imaginative approach to this great problem than she has shown tonight.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Did my hon. Friend also notice that the hon. Lady did not make one mention of the work people concerned? Many of them could be adversely affected by the reorganisation.

Mr. Molloy: I realise that, and acknowledge what my hon. Friend said. When the hon. Lady harps on about subsidies, has she ever considered what could happen to all the factories, all the great industries within this city and its immediate environs, if only 50 per cent. of London Transport did not function one day? I have told the House before that I remember an industrialist telling me that because a number of big, red London buses did not run for a couple of days or a week, skilled craftsmen could not get to their place of work and his firm lost £3,000 to £4,000. It never struck him that he was, therefore, receiving a massive subsidy from London Transport, nor has it struck the hon. Lady.
When my right hon. Friend said that the Bill would be a non-controversial matter, it seemed to me that the few points of controversy would have to come from this side of the House. I think that it will be a remarkable debate, because I have a few points of criticism to make. I am delighted that, for once, we have had a debate initiated by two Front-Benchers in which the criticisms coming


from the other side of the House have been the kind that we on this side have a right to expect. They have been concerned fundamentally with capitalist philosophy and have had very little to do with all the human aspects.
I turn to some of the points on which I wish to question my right hon. Friend, and which I hope my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will deal with. The Blue Paper says that all forms of associations or bodies that the Minister believes can make a contribution in advising the new Executive will be allowed to do so. Is that what is meant in Clause 14 with regard to the consultative body which will be set up? As I understand it, there is a difference between what is said in the Blue Paper and what Clause 14 says. Paragraph 42 (3) on transport planning, on page 9 of the Blue Paper, says:
They will be required to prepare and publish from time to time Transport Plans (consistent with the Greater London Development Plan) for aspects of transport and for periods of time agreed with the Minister.
That is the point.
In framing Plans the Council will consult the Minister. London Transport, British Rail and other bodies which in their view can make a substantial contribution to coping with the problems.
I want my hon. Friend to make clear what is meant by those "other bodies". Some months ago the London Federation of Trades Councils, representing about 1·5 million work people in London, established a specialist transport committee. Its members have been working in their spare time, which reminds me that I appreciate one point made by the hon. Lady, concerning councillors who will be involved in an enormous project in their spare time. We should take note of this. Her very valid point recalled to me the voluntary work that has been done by a number of trade unionists from practically every trade union represented in London in examining all aspects of the problem of London transport. The Federation set up its specialist committee to do that. These men and women have taken on a great deal of responsibility in trying to make a contribution to solving the problem of increasing the value and standard of life in London by having an adequate and sensible public transport system. I hope that my hon.

Friend can say that such bodies, which have established themselves voluntarily and are doing a great deal of voluntary work, will receive the recognition they deserve.
My right hon. Friend said that the Tribunal would have to be abolished, and I confess with some reluctance that I regret its passing. It has not given in immediately to demands from the London Transport Executive for increased fares. The Tribunal's findings have not always been in favour of those demands, and it has compelled London Transport to look again at what it proposed. Very often London Transport has come up with a more efficient answer which has not necessitated the full increase in fares that it proposed. It has managed to gain the revenue in other ways.
Whilst we are speaking about the aspect of revenue and the system paying its way and providing adequate public transport, it is relevant to repeat what I have said here before, that we are asking for the impossible. I acknowledge that other parts of the country probably make a contribution in subsidising Londoners' fares, but one can make that argument the other way as well. London being an extraordinarily attractive city, it also makes a contribution to aiding other parts of the nation, in terms of people who visit it. I should like to know more about the details of what other parts of the country contribute in subsidising Londoners' fares.
Let us not be too absorbed in trying to have a transport system which is at the same time completely adequate, makes everyone happy and pays its way almost overnight—in terms of this problem, when one speaks of doing it in 12 months or two years, one is almost speaking of doing it overnight. It is absurd to imagine that one can achieve any such thing.
We are paying today for what happened in the past, when the party opposite had responsibility for several years. London Transport paid its way, but the service deteriorated. When it was found that London Transport was in danger of not paying its way, services were reduced in order to cut back expenses. The result, as the hon. Lady herself pointed out, was that more people, not being prepared to pay the higher fares,


took to private transport, making in their turn a further contribution to the clogging of the roads, which made it even more difficult for the buses to get through. More Londoners then got "browned off" and were unwilling to go by bus, and they in their turn found their own means of transport. So it went on and on.
In my view, we ought to have been doing something along the lines of this scheme 10 years ago, instead of waiting for the Labour Government to bring forward a realistic appraisal of what has for long been a serious state of affairs.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the truth is precisely the reverse of what he suggests? In fact, the development of the car attracted people away from public transport. That is why there was a decline in the usage of public transport, with consequent increases in fares to meet the level of costs which remained fixed.

Mr. Molloy: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to what I said. That is what I was arguing. It is dismaying if a simple point like that cannot be appreciated by someone who is supposed to have a contribution to make in these matters.
The hon. Lady, quite rightly from her point of view, argued that the system must pay its way and that, given that requirement, fares may be have to be put up to follow an increase in costs. The point I was making, which the hon. Gentleman did not understand, is that people refuse to pay the higher charges and for them it seems cheaper to use the private car. This is what happened. London Transport lost the revenue of the man or woman who used the private car. The people using their cars, thousands more of them every week, helped to clutter up the roads and make things more difficult, with the result that more people still became dissatisfied with London Transport.
The argument hitherto has been that, despite all the mess, the snarl-ups and the injury to London's industry, if London Transport paid its way somehow, everything was all right. No one looked hard enough a: the other side of the equation to see whether it was giving an adequate

service. For far too long, we were eating the seed corn. Now, however, these proposals do something in the right direction.
We must all recognise the enormous problems which will be put on the shoulders of councillors across the river. The idea commends itself to me in many ways, since I want to see more local participation, but the House of Commons must not, with the small authority of two hours of debate on the Second Reading of a Bill, imagine that everything is done with and responsibility can be passed over to County Hall. We cannot leave it at that. A great deal must be done to assist the Greater London Council—my party is not in control now, but that makes no difference—in preparing to face the problem and to make its plans so that the scheme now before the House can become a successful reality. I hope that my right hon. Friend will recognise that need and afford as much aid and advice as possible to those in County Hall who will have ultimate responsibility for running this great service.
As my right hon. Friend said, it is an enormous service. Greater London is probably the greatest conurbation in the world. Every year, about 7,000 million passenger miles are covered on journeys by bus, train and underground into and out of London, and even skilled administrators, assisted by Parliament, will find it a challenging task. Snags and difficulties will arise for the Greater London Council and other local authorities, and we must rely upon the Minister of Transport to give them all the help and advice they need.
When we realise that there are 7 million journeys a day made to and from work in Central London, half of them by train, a quarter by bus and a tenth by car, we have some idea of the size of the problem. There is, however, an associated problem to which not enough attention has yet been given. It is not only Londoners who travel in from the suburbs who have trouble. People who live and work in the same area have difficulty in going to and from work. This happens in Ealing and Hammersmith now. My constituency has a large amount of important light industry—factories such as Optrex and Hoover, household names—but the people who live in the area only a few miles from their place of work find it difficult to go from home to work and,


sometimes, even more difficult to go from work back home.
Moreover, we must give attention—my right hon. Friend did not mention this, but I wish he had—to the important social and recreational side of public transport. We must not regard London Transport as merely the means of carrying men and women to and from work. In a civilised society, public transport has a valuable rô le in providing for social and recreatonal journeys.
I am glad that the new scheme deals not only with the vehicles and trains which provide London's transport but covers also the question of roads and connected matters. We must ask industry to co-operate. Industry as well as Parliament must give full co-operation to the Greater London Council in its efforts to make the scheme a success. In this connection, it is high time not just to talk but to do something about staggered hours and getting rid of the rush hour. If London industrialists and trade unions could come to an agreement soon based on a realistic appraisal of the problem of staggered hours, this in itself would make a great contribution in helping the Greater London Council to fulfil its enormous future responsibilities.
I was pleased to note that the remarkable and ever-increasing problem of parking is to be dealt with as part and parcel of these proposals. I am gravely apprehensive about many of these problems. We should have embarked on their solution a long time ago and many of them could have been foreseen ten years ago. We are late in tackling them, but I hope that we are not too late. These proposals should have the support of trade unionists and industrialists and everyone else concerned with transport in London.
If the Bill fails, we shall face such chaos in this great city that the financial losses will be such with the breakdown of London Transport that the figures quoted by the hon. Lady will fade into insignificance. When the scheme gets under way, I hope that assistance will be forthcoming from those I have mentioned, but that foremost in the minds of the G.L.C. and the other local authorities will be the view that this massive exercise is designed fundamentally to improve and enhance the quality of life of the average Londoner.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Peter Bessell: I shall attempt to be very brief because I know that many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen wish to take part in this important debate. For that reason I shall not comment on all the remarks made at such length by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), who spoke for 20 minutes. However, I must take issue with him on one matter. He said that the 1933 Act did not place an obligation on the London Passenger Transport Board to provide adequate services to meet the needs of the travelling public in London. He was quite wrong. The 1933 Act specifically made that provision, whereas this Bill has totally different wording. Clause 5 does not contain a requirement on the Council or on the executive to provide an adequate service. On the contrary, it is drafted to
secure the provision of such public transport services as best meet the need for the time being of Greater London",
and in my view that is a totally inadequate provision.

Mr. Molloy: I want to make only two comments about that. I know the 1933 Act well, because I have studied this problem for a long time. While it put an accent on making London Transport pay its way, it did not put the same accent on the provision of an adequate transport system. I spoke for 20 minutes because I am a London Member and not just speaking in order to make a contribution from the Liberal Party, as the hon. Gentleman is.

Mr. Bessell: The hon. Gentleman made a long intervention. London is not the property of London alone. Its transport services are provided not merely out of the pockets of Londoners and ratepayers in London—and I happen to be a London ratepayer myself. They are provided by taxpayers throughout the length and breadth of the British Isles and it is therefore quite right that there should also be contributions from hon. Members who do not represent London constituencies.
As I have said, I want to be very brief and I shall therefore mention only one or two points which should be discussed this evening. Basically, the Bill is acceptable. There is a need for the comprehensive planning of London


Transport and there is therefore a need for legislation to enable such comprehensive planning to be put into practice.
There are curious differences between the Bill and the Transport Act, 1968, which was the subject of so much debate in the House and in Standing Committee earlier this year. The Chairman and members of the London Executive are to be appointed by the Greater London Council. Under the terms of the 1968 Act, passenger transport authorities in passenger transport areas are to be appointed partly by the constituent councils and partly by the Minister, and the Minister will therefore retain a certain degree of control over the activities of the passenger transport authorities and, for that matter, the executives which are themselves; appointed by the authorities. In this case, however, the G.L.C. will be solely responsible for the appointment of the executive which is to control London's transport. While I prefer this democratic method and regard it as a considerable advance on the system adopted in the Transport Act, I find it curious that this distinction should be made.
The second difference is related to the first. It is that the passenger transport areas of the 1968 Act will be composed of many local authorities. We argued in Committee, during Second Reading and on Report, that this would create considerable difficulties for small local authorities, who might find themselves out-voted by one large local authority; or, conversely, one might have one fairly large local authority outvoted by a large number of small local authorities within the designated area. Here, at least we have a very much better principle, that the Executive will be appointed, controlled, and directed in all things that it does by the Greater London Council which is the elected representative of the people of London. This system is a very much better one.
I turn to one Clause, Clause 36. I would have liked to refer to Clause 20 but, leaving aside that Clause, Clause 36 to my mind is the one most objectionable feature of the Bill. Off-street car parking will have to be provided by private enterprise. It is ridiculous to suppose that the entire off-street car parking essential for a city the size of London with its present growth rate can be

provided by the G.L.C. through funds provided in turn by the ratepayers.
It is therefore necessary that encouragement should be given to private developers. Anyone who has had experience of developing multi-storey car parks, underground car parks or any other form of car parks, is aware that the cost is disproportionately expensive in the centre of London in comparison with other parts of the country. This is because of the very high cost of the land upon which these car parks will be built. It is therefore necessary to impose very much higher parking charges. This cannot be avoided. It must be faced. It is no use attempting to encourage developers to put up a car park, multistorey or otherwise, unless they have freedom to charge a price which will enable them to service and amortise the loan capital which will be involved in the development of such a car park.
I have particular experience of this as some hon. Members are well aware because I have quoted this on other occasions. I refer to the position in the United States, particularly New York, where car parking facilities, are, particularly in Manhattan, more readily available than in Central London. This is because of the development which has been undertaken by private enterprise. The charges are stratospheric; they are as much as 10s. for one hour's parking, but at least this ensures that there is a method of parking, even if the price is too high.
The hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) has expressed most adequately, in an admirable speech, the dangers which will emanate from this Clause. I do not think that any developer is likely to accept the vast powers of control and the rights to demand inspection and disclosure contained in this Clause. The Government and the G.L.C. will find that when the time comes there will be little if any opportunity to attract private investors into an area of development which is essential for smooth traffic flow and the advance of London in terms of transport.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: rose —

Mr. Bessell: I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman because it is not fair that I should speak at length. I want to make my points quickly and resume my


seat. I am disappointed to find there is no provision in the Bill to ensure that the Executive takes any necessary steps to protect the safety of bus operators, and bus drivers and conductors and the inspectors on the routes. Many of us are seriously alarmed by the growing violence in our cities. We can understand the concern expressed recently by drivers and conductors within the City of London.
If I were in their position I would share the alarm that they have expressed for their safety. The people of this country, and therefore Parliament, have a clear responsibility to protect their public servants. We cannot shy away from it. The right hon. Gentleman showed no reluctance to introduce new Clauses in the 1968 Act during its Committee stage, and later, and I would say that he should introduce in Committee, a new Clause to make it compulsory for the G.L.C. and the new Executive to engage and train a special police force to be available to protect the drivers and conductors of our buses in the City of London. Many other suggestions have been made by the drivers and conductors, and I am not adament about my suggestion, but it is important that powers should be clearly spelled out in the Bill to ensure that steps are taken to overcome the threatening situation which has caused such alarm and justifiable concern to drivers and conductors.
Overall, the Bill is a far more democratic piece of legislation than the 1968 Act from which it departs, in some ways, in quite startling but very pleasing manner. Therefore, with the inevitable reservations which I have mentioned, and some which were mentioned by the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley, I welcome the Bill. The 1933 Act has served London well, in spite of its critics. The London services are not above criticism, but they are far superior to those in most, if not all, capital cities. The Bill can be a means of improving those services, and it will help to meet the vast new demands created in the 35 years since the 1933 Act was passed.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. A. H. Macdonald: It is always a pleasure to sit opposite the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and to hear her dis-

course. As always, her financial acumen was impeccable. It stands out a mile to anybody who reads the Bill that the writing off of the large sum mentioned in it is only a write-off concerning the Greater London Council, and the taxpayers will still have to contribute £11 million per year. As a London Member and resident, and a non-driver, I look on this with a good deal of approval, but I am surprised that we do not have masses of provincial Members present to give voice to their protest. I shall be interested to hear what the hon. Lady's colleague has to say in the Opposition's concluding speech.
I cannot follow the hon. Lady in her political strictures. She made some tart remarks about the nationalised industries. She might have referred to the fact that in London Transport we have something which is, by its very essence, uneconomic to run. It is interesting to note that the G.L.C, when it takes it over, even though it will have what is equivalent to a subsidy of £11 million a year from the taxpayers, will not be able to run London Transport without increasing fares to which my right hon. Friend the Minister alluded. It must be obvious that London Transport's problems can never be solved in the context of the transport system alone.
I turn briefly to one point which arises in the Bill. I do not wish to go into Clauses 32, 34 and 35 in detail, and certainly not at this hour, but I wish to mention the principle which seems to me to underlie these three Clauses. They propose to transfer certain powers in controlling pedestrian crossings, traffic lights and street parking from the boroughs to the G.L.C. It is in Clause 35 that the underlying principle is most clearly manifest, and it fills me with a little apprehension.
Clause 35, dealing with the control of street parking, explicity provides that if there is any difference between the G.L.C. and the boroughs the view of the G.L.C. shall prevail. That is based on the assumption that the G.L.C. is a superior authority and the boroughs are lesser authorities. It is precisely this assumption which I wish to challenge.
The London Government Act, 1963, expressly provides that, although there are two types of authorities in Greater London, we do not have a two-tier local


government structure. The Greater London Council has its powers, which are appropriate for those which need to be exercised over a wide area. The boroughs have their powers, which are more appropriate to be exercised locally. There is, however, no suggestion that the G.L.C., because it is larger and occupies a greater area, is, therefore, more important, superior or overriding as against the boroughs. Having served on the council of a borough, I know that boroughs take pride in their achievements and look with just a little apprehension at the mighty power of the G.L.C.
The Bill expressly sets out, not without justification, to make the G.L.C. more powerful, and in the control of London Transport I fully accept this; but because the Bill will make the G.L.C. more powerful than it was, we should be careful to look cautiously at the additional powers that we are giving to the Council lest we make it far too powerful in relation to the London boroughs. As Shakespeare said,
O! it is excellent
To have a giant's strenth, but it is tyrannous
To use it like a giant.
I would not like it to be assumed, as the Bill appears to assume, that the G.L.C.'s power shall automatically prevail in any dispute which it may have with the London boroughs.
I do not want to argue about the powers that the Bill proposes to transfer from the boroughs to the G.L.C.—that can be discussed in Committee—but it seems to me that the case for transferring them should be made with a good deal more cogency than is done in the White Paper.
I thought that the powers to be transferred were, in large measure, local powers and, therefore, that there might be something to be said for leaving them with the London boroughs. It is the underlying principle to which I most particularly object. In the event of a dispute, why must the views of the G.L.C. prevail? Why cannot there be set up an authority to arbitrate between the two?—not the Minister; I do not want him to fulfil that rô le, because he has drawn up the Clause. Therefore, if we were to do this, we know on whose side he would come down. Why not have a more impartial body, perhaps the London

Boroughs Association, to decide in the event of a dispute?
These powers which are being transferred are not of enormous cosmic importance, but it seems to me that the principle underlying the transfer should be considered at the outset, lest on a future occasion more and more powers are transferred from the boroughs to the G.L.C. I would not like to see this done.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: I wish to join in the general welcome that the House has extended to the Bill in broad outline. It certainly makes sense that there should be co-ordinated into one hand the powers of planning, the general highway functions and also public service transport. It is also right that these functions should be concentrated in a body which is responsible and answerable to the people of London through its elected members.
It is appropriate at this point to congratulate the Greater London Council on the tough and successful bargaining which it has had with the former Minister of Transport in ensuring that 90 per cent. of the capital debt is wiped off before it assumes responsibility for the transport services in London. The right hon. Lady has suggested that the Minister has made a bad bargain, and perhaps she is right. That does not, however, prevent a London Member congratulating the G.L.C. on making a very good bargain for its ratepayers.
There is one aspect of the Bill on which I have reservations. I know that the G.L.C. will be assuming responsibility only for general policy but not for the day-to-day running of the transport services. The day-to-day running will be the responsibility of the new London Transport Executive which will be appointed by the G.L.C. I feel that in some respects this is a mistake. All hon. Members know the frustration of trying to deal with constituency complaints against nationalised industries. No Minister is responsible for them, and no Minister can be brought here to be questioned about them. In one respect, of course, the time of the House is saved. We do not have to deal with a great deal of detail, but, at the same time, there is left the feeling that these complaints do not receive the kind of attention they


would do if the Department were responsible to a Minister who, in turn, was responsible to this House.
This is the situation with the London Transport Executive. Members make representations, they are courteously received, but they are often left with the feeling that the complaints are not dealt with as urgently as they would be if the L.T.E. was under the direct control of the House.
The situation will be very similar between the G.L.C. and the London Transport Executive if the Bill remains in its present form. I should like to see the officers of the L.T.E. as a Department which would be dealing with day-to-day complaints directly responsible to the G.L.C. rather than being responsible to the L.T.E. I feel that if that were the situation there would be a greater sense of urgency in dealing with complaints. I appreciate that the work of the G.L.C. cannot grind to a standstill at Question Time because of chairmen of committees having to explain why the No. 11 bus was late on a certain day, or why it arrived in a convoy of five or six. Questions of that kind would be intolerable, but, on the other hand, there are questions which ought to be dealt with directly with the G.L.C.
For example, the L.T.E. is converting double-decker buses, with a driver and conductor, into single-decker buses operated by one man. These buses are fine in Central London, operating between the five major termini, conveying a vast number of people quickly through Central London, but they are hopeless in the London suburbs. I have received numerous complaints from constituents about these buses, particularly from older people who are frightened of getting on and off these buses, and from small children who are often not seen by a driver, and are left behind when the bus moves off. I have had discussions on this matter with the L.T.E I have been received courteously, and been listened to attentively—but, no dice. I have been promised minor modifications, but the real problem cannot be dealt with. This is something for which an elected representative should be responsible, a person whom the ratepayers can approach to ensure that something is done.
There is some hope in the general consultative committee which is to be set up under Clause 14. I see that that body will have the power to receive representations by or on behalf of users of the services and facilities. It may be that this consultative body acting between the L.T.E. and the G.L.C., will serve the purpose, but it will do so only if it is given appropriate powers, and made a vigorous body which will be listened to. It will be useless if it is to be a sieve, or a means of getting difficult complaints hived off, pigeon-holed, and put away.
I notice from the Report of the Steering Committee of the G.L.C, which was published today, that the precise form of this organisation is still under study, that it is not known what form it will take. I therefore take this opportunity to urge that this consultative committee, this consumer protection council for bus and tube users, be given the greatest possible power, and be made up of people of the highest possible calibre who will be prepared to investigate complaints and to make the strongest possible recommendations to the G.L.C. to make sure that the day-to-day running of the L.T.E. is carried out in accordance with the wishes of the general public in London. The value of the Bill will not be judged by the public in terms of integration, co-ordination, planning, highway functions and the other modern terms which roll off the tongues of politicians. They will judge the Measure by what it does for the services they are using.
If the general public decide that, despite the Bill and our words, the consultative committees and other bodies which are to be set up—including the 14 per cent. increase in fares which I am distressed to hear we may face—the services which they use are not more efficient, they will say that we have wasted our time. I want to see a responsible body being concerned with the running of London Transport, which is accountable to the electorate and which is determined to ensure that London's transport system operates efficiently.
Local councils should be given a statutory right to representation on the new organisation which we propose to establish, although provision for them to be so represented is not contained in the


Bill. Local authorities know more than anyone else what is needed in their areas.
There are other matters which I would have liked to have raised, such as the provisions in Clause 6 concerning the right to sell petrol, run car parks and so on. I am unhappy about some of these matters. I do not want to see the G.L.C. competing with private firms in this sphere.
If time permitted I would have said much about Clause 36, which deals with the licensing of off-street car parking places. It seems that the G.L.C. is assuming tremendous autocratic powers in this matter. It seems determined to drive the all-day commuter's car—the one man, one car commuter—off the road completely It seems that it will do this by interfering with—indeed, by virtually taking over—all privately-owned off-street car parking facilities in the Greater London area. Whether or not this is desirable is a matter for grave doubt and I would liked to have seen the problem tackled in a different way. I have doubts about these provisions, which I hope will be carefully scrutinised in Committee.
I have cut short my remarks because the debate started later than we expected and many hon. Members still wish to speak. I join in the general welcome which has been given to the Bill but I have strong reservations about some of the detail in it. I hope that the outcome of the Measure will be a far more efficient transport service for Londoners.

Several Hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. I hope that other hon. Members I may call will emulate the brevity of recent speeches. Mr. Huckfield.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Much has been made of the Bill, but I hope that we will not kid ourselves that it represents a great revolution. We are merely giving control of local transport to local people. Every other major capital city in the Western world has done this, so that, in this respect, instead of leading the world we are trailing behind it. I have always been in favour of as much local partcipation in these matters as possible. That is what we are doing today—nothing more.
Much has been said of the comprehensive powers which will be given to the new authority which will be set up under the Measure. The trouble is that they will not be comprehensive enough. If one compares this proposed body with any organisation in, for example, North America or the Continent, one sees that these foreign authorities have a far greater measure of control over their freeways, bridges, tunnels and so on than our authority will have.
In San Francisco the tolls on the Golden Gate Bridge will be used to subsidise the Bay area rapid transit system. Similarly, the tolls to be charged on the Chicago expressways will be used to subsidise the Chicago State Transport Authority. Similarly, the tolls on the Triborough Bridge of the New York State Metropolitan Transportation Authority will be used to subsidise public transportation.
My right hon. Friend states that he is giving the Greater London Council and the London Transport Executive sufficient powers but then excludes things like the motorway box. I believe that he has not gone far enough. We are not only discussing the future revenues of the Authority. We are talking, especially if we are considering things such as the motorway box, about the potential competition public transport will have. I believe that we must be even more comprehensive.
Various people have praised the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933 and have alluded to the London Government Act, 1963. I believe that London Transport has always had one major failing. It can run buses independently to a certain extent. It can run tube trains independently to a certain extent. There has never been any proper measure of co-ordination. What has been happening in Hamburg for the past two years makes the Bill about two years out of date. What happened with the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority makes the Bill about 10 years out of date. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If hon. Members would study the facts about the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, instead of reading pamphlets written by people who have every reason to be biased, they would reach a different conclusion.
This is a Measure which I hope will promote much more co-ordination and


interchange facilities between the various London Transport media. The hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) referred to the viability of the system. I was very distressed to hear the hon. Lady refer to the London Transport Executive in the same terms as companies like I.C.I, and Shell. One major difference between the L.T.E. and such companies is that London Transport must concern itself with social costs and social benefits. It is not making chemicals. It is not marketing. It has to deal with things like congestion, the cost of congestion, and the social costs involved in not having a properly viable, efficient and co-ordinated transport system. Any reference to costs and revenues—any reference to viability—which does not include a reference to social costs is wrong. We all know that congestion on the roads in Central London can cost untold millions of pounds in wasted time and effort. I am sorry that the hon. Lady did not mention this aspect.
It has always seemed to me that, though public transport in Britain is better than it is in certain North American and other cities—here I agree with the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell)—we still do not cater for those who are very dependent on public transport. We do not propertly cater for the disabled and old-age pensioners. In this Bill we should be thinking about those who have not a hope of getting a driving licence or access to a private car. Los Angeles, where 43 per cent. of the population, because of the freeway system, do not have this access, has totally failed to provide for these groups. I hope that the Bill will not fail in this regard. Let us hear far more reference to things such as the provision of concessionary fares and to providing public transport for those really depending on it and who do not have access to the private car.
I was also distressed to hear the references by the hon. Member for Bodmin to not having control over private car parking concerns in Central London. I do not like National Car Parks Ltd., I think it should be taken over. I do not agree that we should give it near-monopoly sites in Central London and not have any control over them.

Mr. Bessell: It has not got a monopoly.

Mr. Huckfield: If the hon. Gentleman examines the site at Euston I am sure that he will agree that it is a near-monopoly for parking at Euston Station.

Mr. Bessell: At Euston Station, but not in London generally. There are many other private operators. There is no question of a monopoly for one company.

Mr. Huckfield: What the average driver wants is a parking space near to his destination and he finds that, in many instances, National Car Parks Ltd. has the monopoly. We should have more supervision over these near-monopoly sites.
Another aspect is the degree of coordination of transport. There should be much more co-ordination between the suburban parts of the British Railways regions and the London Transport Executive. The Minister has grant aid powers; the G.L.C. is to have subsidy powers and the National Bus Company has a certain amount of power for bus subsidies. We should be thinking seriously about whether we have the right means of differentiation between British Railways and its subsidiaries, the London Transport Executive and its subsidiaries and the National Bus Company and its subsidiaries. The whole thing must be better defined.
We have heard much reference to the status of public transport employees, for which I am grateful. We have to achieve a radical change in their status. It is often forgotten that we are talking of lower-paid workers when we refer to bus drivers and conductors. I believe they should be put at the head of the queue for pay increases and better status. Without them, London simply would not function. We must achieve greater status, financial and otherwise, for them.
It is all very well talking about financial viability of a public transport system, about directing car traffic and about conveying people far more efficiently, but let us realise that many people will never have a car nor access to a car in their everyday lives. These are principally the people we shall be dealing with and I hope that, during the passage of the Bill, we shall consider them a lot more than we have tonight.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Berry: I must begin with a protest. I am sure that today will be looked upon as a back benchers' day but the time we should have had for the debate has been savagely curtailed. I wish that the Leader of the House had announced last Thursday that the Motion for the Adjournment on Friday would be taken today, for we might then have asked for an extra hour of debate on this Bill and I am sure that, with his usual courtesy, he would have agreed.
I think we are all agreed that something must be done not only about car parking spaces but about the use of the roads leading to them. I shall continue to question the Government and, later, the G.L.C. about this matter. If they are going to prevent or discourage people from bringing their cars into central London, they must provide more parking space on the outskirts so that people can leave their cars there and travel on by public transport. About a year ago, I asked the Minister of Transport how many additional car parking spaces additional to the existing 7,700 were being built at underground stations during 1968. The figure given was about 2,500. Yesterday I asked how many had been completed, and I was told 2,000. When I asked how many new spaces it was expected would be built in the coming year, I was told that no forecast was available for a full year but that the number so far approved was 143. Provision on that scale will not solve the problem. The Underground stations around London must be supplied with proper parking facilities for commuters.
I should have liked, had there been time, to discuss the very remarkable powers that the new body will have in connection with the use of nationalised industry. My hon. Friends will not be surprised to know that I would have turned, in particular, to the Waterways Board, which was given vast powers by the 1968 Act. I cannot see why the G.L.C. should need to construct, manufacture and produce anything for the Waterways Board, as this Measure will allow it to do. Again, the 1968 Act put a limitation on hovercraft of about 25 miles outside a P.T.A. area, but the Bill makes no such limitation at all—the scope is world wide.
I hope that the Londoner and all who use transport in London will benefit from the Bill, and I feel sure that, in the long run, they will. The Blue Book states that the intention is to give Londoners the chance to create the transport facilities they need, but I hope that Londoners will now have the transport facilities which it is their right to enjoy.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: It will be generally agreed that the one coherent theme running through these deliberations is that the principle of trying to centre these transport functions on the G.L.C. is accepted and welcomed on all sides. We discussed that principle earlier in the year in relation to passenger transport authorities, and we have always been united in the belief that it was essential to get larger units which could administer local transporation services. The qualification we make is that the authority to which the powers are to be transferred should be of a sufficiently comprehensive transport nature to command the resources in men and materials to carry out the job on the scale which the complexity of today's problems demands.
One justification for the acceptance of the principle, and one which my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) touched on very pertinently, is that it enables the local community, as defined by the transport unit, to bear the cost of the services that those in that community require. They will the means and, having done so, they must expect to bear the cost. Listening to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) I wondered whether he realised that there is a direct relationship between a community's demands for transport services and the fact that someone ultimately has to pay for them. In some way, he seemed to think that one could avoid that direct responsibility.
But the chief criticism under this heading must be reserved for the Minister himself—and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is used to the idea that the principal criticism must be reserved for him. Having said quite clearly in the Blue Book:
The Government do not think it right that transport for Londoners should continue to be subsidised at the expense of taxpayers throughout the country …".


the Minister comes to an arrangement with the G.L.C. which writes in for all time a permanent £11 million a year subsidy at the expense of our taxpayers and to the benefit of the citizens of London. He has told us today that that is the basis of the arrangements on which viability of London Transport has been arrived—

Mr. Marsh: Perhaps I should ask the hon. Gentleman the question which I asked his hon. Friend earlier on the same point: is not the logic of what he says that the fares increase should be higher?

Mr. Heseltine: That is an extremely sharp political question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I thought it a very good question when the Minister asked it of my hon. Friend and I think it a good question now, but it is a political trick question. Having laid down the fundamental principles upon which the scheme he is introducing rests, the Minister finds the logic of the scheme inconvenient. He finds that it would be undesirable for him to advance to Londoners the suggestion that their fares should be increased by an additional £11 million, and he immediately violates the principle. When we draw attention to the fact that he has violated the principle, he asks whether we would not have done the same. That does not justify the fact that he has set out a set of policies based on the principle and then violated the principle.

Mr. Marsh: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member so soon again, but this gives him an opportunity to answer the question which I put to him.

Mr. Heseltine: It is a very fair question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—and the Minister knows that there is another answer. It is the answer already drawn to his attention by the Prices and Incomes Board Report—[HON. MEMBERS: "Is it your answer?"] I will deal with the management of London Transport Board when I get to it and with the costs which may be saved there, as opposed to dealing with it now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I will answer the question. I have said that there is another way, as Mr. Awbrey Jones made clear, by which administrative costs could be saved in the London Transport Board situation. I shall come

to that later in my speech. I am sure that hon. Members have read the Report of the Prices and Incomes Board. It makes quite clear that there are economies and there is an alternative—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Heseltine) is addressing the House. I want to hear him.

Mr. Heseltine: I shall wait until I get to that part of my speech rather than repeat the argument on two separate occasions.

Mr. John Ellis: It would be a fair answer if the hon. Member would say that he would save the whole of the cost by tuning up the whole administrative side. If that is the answer, he should say so.

Mr. Heseltine: It is quite impossible for anyone in opposition to know exactly what economies are possible from administrative efficiencies of London Transport Board. One thing which is clear is that until we have examined that possibility—and it will be more important when we come to the management of British Railways—we have no right to expect Londoners to pay increased fares to save the trouble of probing managerial inefficiency. I shall come back to my point about the Prices and Incomes Board in the appropriate part of my speech. These principles are at the centre of the Bill. The large unit should bear the costs where they originate. There I think I command the support of everyone in all parts of the House.
We do not need to dwell on the capacity of the G.L.C. to deal with this situation. It has the financial resources, it has a large enough area and it has the men with skills to do so. The point has been made by many hon. Members, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley, that in drawing up legislation it is all too easy to see the main purpose and to define it in a Bill and then to surround that main purpose with a whole range of contingency powers for which there is no need in the first place. It is much more easy to put it in the original legislation than to have to come back later to some particular item which one might have left out.
The danger is that once one has put it in the legislation, little by little the use of these powers will go on until, by Parkinson's Law concerning Government or municipal machinery, it has spread to a much wider field than was necessary or was intended by the House. Looking at some of the powers which concern us, we find the first and obvious one is in Clause (5 (1) (a) to run any form of transport services, particularly buses, anywhere to and from London. This means not only in the United Kingdom, but overseas as well. We have never been convinced, and I hope that the G.L.C. will not be, that there is any need for this wide extension of operational capacity over and above that which has existed in various forms prior to this legislation.
I should like to take up an assurance which the Minister gave to the House in connection with this point, and which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will continue I understood the Minister to say that the existing operators of stage and express services will go on. The Parliamentary Secretary nods his head, so I think I may take it that we have agreement about that.
That being so, I should like the hon. Gentleman to explain precisely what is meant by the condition or right to cancel certain consent provisions in Schedule 4, paragraph 13. I understand the provisions are those to be found in the Passenger Transport Authority provisions. We dealt with this matter at great length in Committee. I understand that existing consents will go on up to the moment, but not a minute later, that the London Transport Executive decides that it will cancel them. It is important that the words used by the Minister are set right by the Parliamentary Secretary, because bus operators within the newly established set-up will want to know whether what is in the legislation is the same as in the Passenger Transport Authority areas, or whether there is to be some change in the provisions of this legislation to give effect to a new set of circumstances.
I now turn to Clause 20 (1) (b). I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will follow me, because this is an important new provision which did not appear in the Passenger Transport Authority provisions. I confess it is one which I have misunderstood. It is so extensive in the powers

that it appears to convey to the London Transport Executive that I cannot believe it was intended that it should be included. I am at a loss to understand that the G.L.C. ever intended this power to appear in the legislation. Paraphrasing, it says that specified transport services which the Executive has the power to provide should be capable of being transferred to the Executive if the Executive wants them transferred. I understand that to mean that the London Transport Executive has the right to find any facility provided by the private sector and, if it feels that it can do it, for whatever reason it likes, it has the right to have that facility transferred to it.
I will put some examples of what I have in mind to the Parliamentary Secretary. First, taxicab services. Do I understand that companies owning taxi-cabs are to find themselves under threat of a message from the London Transport Executive that the shares in the companies are to be taken over by the L.T.E.?
Secondly, owners of garages with parking facilities. Are they to find themselves in a situation where they could receive a similar message?
Thirdly, companies manufacturing spare parts for the L.T.E. or the G.L.C. Are they to find themselves in such a situation?

Several Hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not on the former Transport Bill now.

Mr. Heseltine: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Fourthly, garages situated close to transport facilities owned by companies. Are they also to find themselves in a situation where they can be taken over by the London Transport Executive?
If my suspicions are not right and there is no intention of the L.T.E. taking over these facilities of privately-owned companies, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell me why there is provision in the legislation to pay compensation to people operating those facilities.
Moving on, there are the familiar situations concerning the transfer of land. We are not satisfied that it is necessary for land to be transferred to any partner that the L.T.E. should take up. We will be concerned in Committee with the


value of any transfer which may take place.
There is the familiar situation, which I am delighted to hear that the G.L.C. this afternoon rejected, that it should be permitted to manufacture anything for the purpose of the nationalised transport authorities. A new question comes to light here. I will not go over the ground that we covered on the extension of the nationalised industries, but one specific question occurs to me.
It is obvious—it is on the record—that there has been a substantial clash of opinion between the Ministry and the Greater London Council concerning these ancillary powers. My opinion is that G.L.C. believes that it has introduced certain safeguards into this legislation. I am interested to know exactly how safe those safeguards are.
The question arises under Clause 6 (1) (i). by which the Executive can manufacture anything for the purposes of the national transport authorities. Am I to understand that the purposes of the nationalised transport authorities include the Clause 48 powers in the Transport Act, 1968? If that is within the definition of the purposes of those transport authorities, the Executive could manufacture items which could then be wholesaled or retailed by the other nationalised transport authorities which have the power to do so under Clause 48. I would like a specific answer about this.
Under paragraph (j) of Clause 6 (1), we are back on the old arguments of the provision of petrol, oil and sundry services. I am sure that the Minister has read frequently the utterances of the Prices and Incomes Board that the industry is already over-capitalised, that too many people are engaged in it, that the margins are too small and how much better a contraction would be than an extension. Nevertheless, one cannot help sympathising with my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) in making the point that we were not able to explore this at great length this afternoon. It will be no surprise to the Minister that we shall explore it at length in Committee.
I cannot understand why the powers in Clause 6 (1) (g) are not covered by the

Executive's mandatory duty to behave in a commercial manner. These powers include those of repair, maintenance and supply. I cannot understand why the Executive should not have exactly the same powers imposed on it as relate to other semi-commercial activities.
It is our contention that an organisation such as the G.L.C. should be empowered to provide basic transport services. It is a large task and an immense challenge. To clutter it up with a whole range of ancillary services which no nationalised sector is fitted to provide is merely to divert it from its main purposes
Those are examples of what I believe to be wrong decisions. It is true that they involve only the handing over of permissive powers; there is no guarantee that any of these things will ever come about. Nevertheless, we on this side believe that for this House to hand over permissive powers is wrong. If the G.L.C. is able to persuade the Minister to change his mind on these powers as a result of its resolution, I shall be pleased.
I move on to the parking powers as listed in Clause 36. The House is giving up a decision in the question of parking matters. As has been explained today, the powers in the Bill are, in our view, far more comprehensive than is justified to achieve the ends, which may in themselves be desirable, which the Government, the Ministry of the G.L.C. has ever said that it wishes to achieve.
I accept at once that it is impossible to have a coherent transport policy for traffic management and highway construction and to face the general challenge presented by the growth in the use of the motor car without power to control parking; but the powers which we are talking about, which we shall want to examine in Committee, are much more detailed than we believe to be necessary for this purpose.
I hope that we can persuade the Government to re-examine many of these powers in detail. I hope that when the G.L.C. exercises them, it will do so with the greatest care, for two reasons. First, simply by the very nature of the G.L.C, it is bound to be the experimental cockpit of Britain. It will be in advance of all the other experiments in parking. Obviously, everybody will watch to see how well it does, and the mistakes which it


makes are likely to cause ripples in the other conurbations. It is, therefore, important that the Council should try to involve those of us who live in its area and who travel into it in its plans from the outset. I hope that it will not feel that it can devise a policy which is kept very close to its chest, and take decisions without trying to get us all involved in the choices it makes on our behalf. I hope that it will try to bring the matter into the open so that we can all understand what is going on.
The private car park operators are an example of why this is essential. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) is a very scathing critic of certain private car park operators, but I believe that they have done a good job. It would be disastrous if the private sector were driven out of the provision of off-street parking, if we found a situation similar to that in the provision of private houses. That market is virtually non-existent today because the owners of risk capital will not move into it for fear of Government action. They are afraid of the rent controls which successive Govern tnents—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will talk about the Bill.

Mr. Heseltine: I accept your ruling, of course, Mr. Speaker.
I hope that Government or G.L.C. intervention will not be carelessly handled at this stage in a way that deters the private sector from injecting risk capital into the provision of off-street parking. When I read the comments of the leader of the G.L.C. about his desire to get rid of non-essential parking, I wondered whether those words would send a chill down the spine of all those likely to wonder whether they should invest their money in the provision of parking. What is non-essential parking? How does one define it? Are we to understand that there will be a grading of each journey undertaken by people going in and out of London? It would be impracticable. Shall we be able to draw as clear a distinction as the phrase might imply between commuters and those coming in for short periods? Are we to penalise the man who comes into London to run a substantial company, and who wants all-day parking facilities, by classifying him

as non-essential, while somebody who drives into Central London to buy candy floss and then drives out again might come within the definition of essential travellers? Those are the difficulties one faces when one tries to make hard and fast rules about the sort of people one will try to provide facilities for.
I hope that the G.L.C. will take the public into its confidence over its plans. We must make the ordinary citizens understand the problems that will arise from the doubling of the number of cars in 12 years. Every time the proportion of car ownership rises, the number of times each car is used also rises. These two factors will place great burdens on the decision-makers in transportation. We should try to get public awareness of the problems and costs involved.
I now turn to the widest aspect of the Bill which concerns me. A problem that has not been explored by hon. Members at the length one might have expected is the relationship with British Rail. The Blue Paper clearly shows that British Rail is responsible for bringing in well over half the people who come into Central London. The bus services bring another quarter. Only 27 per cent. of those coming to work do so by car, so the essence of the financial problem lies with the bus operators—the London Transport Executive, as it will be—or British Rail.
The Bill does not come to grips with British Rail. It is apparent to all who have read it that the Ministry and the G.L.C. have not reached agreement on this, and there is no provision for them to do so. A series of plans has been produced and a series of investigations will take place, but there is nothing that ends the honeymoon period. The only thing that can do so is a totally frank investigation of the problems of financing British Rail in the areas around London and those serving it.
I understand from the White Paper that the suburban network could break: even by 1972. If that is so, the Ministry must know what the detailed figures are for British Railways within the London area. If it knows those figures and can make forecasts about breaking even by 1972, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us why it does not know the detailed figures for the Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool conurbations.
which it has taken them more than a year to discover.
The truth is that, in order to bring financial balance into the economy of London's transport, it is essential that we come to grips with the problem of the losses on British Railways relating to the London area. It is a sad reflection on the Minister that he has not been able to come to an agreement with the Greater London Council which would deal with that situation.
There are several hon. Members present—I am one—who do not represent London constituencies, and we are bound to judge these proposals very much in the context of constituencies elsewhere in the country. We know that in this area the taxpayers, our constituents, are paying a heavy subsidy towards transport in London. This matter will never be put right until all the information which is at present hidden either in the Ministry or in British Railways is brought out into the open so that we may examine it and settle the problem once and for all.
There is now presented to the Greater London Council one of the most fabulous opportunities which could be conceived. For the first time, the councillors of London are elected to represent a generation who will probably replan, rebuild and recreate the environment of the society within which they themselves will live. No generation in history has ever had such an opportunity. In the context of the enormous sums of money involved, the £860 million to be spent on road works alone by 1983, and so on, one realises how magnificent is the opportunity presented to those responsible in the Greater London Council. We in the House wish them the best of luck. I only hope that they will have the resolve and determination to resist just a little longer the worst doctrinaire approaches of the Minister in the sort of powers which he is trying to foist upon them.

9.37 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown): My right hon. Friend did not attempt in opening to cover every detail of this complex and comprehensive Measure. None the less, some of the less fundamental elements which he men-

tioned in passing call for a somewhat fuller explanation, and I have in mind also the comments and questions which hon. Members have made. In the light of what has been said, I hope now to fill in some of the details on matters of interest to the House.
The hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) made great play of giving the Greater London Council £270 million worth of assets for £27 million, and she went on to labour the point that the taxpayer will have to find £11 million annually in interest charges. The hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) said much the same. I wonder how the hon. Lady and her hon. Friend can talk in such terms about those £270 million assets, which have been non-asset for a long time. She implies that, if the Government pay the £11 million, they are saddling the taxpayer with that annual charge. Clearly, the G.L.C. will not pay it. If the Government are not to pay it, who is to pay? I suggest that the only people who can pay it are the London travelling public, through increased fares above the £8 million about which the hon. Lady already complains—

Mr. Ellis: Or London ratepayers.

Mr. Brown: Or, as my hon. Friend says, the ratepayers of London.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I did not put this question specifically, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will say how much economy he thinks could be achieved from the suggestions made on page 19 of the Report of the Prices and Incomes Board on London Transport?

Mr. Brown: I am delighted that the hon. Member has intervened, because I am coming precisely to that. The hon. Lady cannot have her cake and eat it. She cannot complain about the proposed fare increases next year and at the same time berate us for saddling the taxpayer with this £11 million a year subsidy.

Mrs. Thatcher: Many different sorts of financial arrangements could have been made and I do not know what course the negotiations took. This is the arrangement which the hon. Gentleman has recommended.

Mr. Brown: I am coming to that. The hon. Lady made a general statement


about the write-off and about the other write-offs of other nationalised industries, but in fairness she must concede that this writing off on behalf of the nationalised industries was something in which her own Government had their share.
The hon. Member for Tavistock and the hon. Lady flogged the issue of the National Board for Prices and Incomes and its suggestions. The hon. Lady mentioned non-producers and the hon. Gentleman mentioned administrative staffs and suggested that economies could be made in those directions. I find it amazing that their underlying suggestion seemed to be that if we got shot of those non-producers, we would save this £11 million a year in interest charges. If the L.T.B. is carrying so many non-producers—

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman must be fully aware that the Aubrey Jones Board's recommendation was centred around the re-negotiation of a productivity agreement with the unions.

Mr. Brown: I am coming to that. All the things which Aubrey Jones and his Board suggested—one man operation, automatic fare collection and so on—have already been put in hand to some extent and the effects are already accounted for in the financial arrangements proposed in the Bill.
I remind the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends that the N.B.P.I. approved fare increases amounting to £3 million more than LT.B. was able to introduce The L.T.B. was prevented not by the Government, but by the Transport Tribunal. It will be up to the N.B.P.I. when it gets its next reference on fares to decide whether the proposed £8 million is justified.
The hon. Member for Tavistock asked about present operators in London other than the L.T.B. Under Schedule 4 they will clearly get an automatic right to continue within their present rights. Prevailing rights differ in different cases. Some have rights for a further 12 months, and some have indefinite rights. If these rights are not renewed, compensation will be paid under the same type of provision as is made in the Transport Act.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) spoke about

consultation. I am shortly to meet the Executive of the London Trades Council. If it is wise, and I am sure that it is, the G.L.C. will use all the powers for consultation at its disposal and if it is to enter consultation with all manner of bodies, the Federation of Trades Councils should be consulted.
The hon. Member for Tavistock mentioned Clause 20 (1) (b) which gives the G.L.C. the right to instruct the Transport Executive to make proposals for taking over other transport facilities or services. These proposals would normally incorporate some form of agreement for buying or otherwise taking over, but not compulsorily taking over against the will of the present operators.
The provisions for compensation would relate to the staff affected. The hon. Member mentioned the powers in Clause 6 (1) (i); the safeguard for commercial operations is in Clause 12, enabling the Minister to direct the Executives to discontinue or modify any activity which is not being operated economically. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) asked me to elaborate on the travel concessions provision. As one who takes some pleasure in regarding himself as the author of Section 127 of the Transport Act, 1968, dealing with travel concessions, and as I have introduced two Private Member's Bills on the subject, I am naturally delighted to do so.
The Government have, as a matter of policy, thought it right since 1964 progressively to widen, as the legislative occasions have arisen, the opportunities for travel concessions on public transport for the elderly, the disabled and the blind. Under the 1968 Act we gave this power to most local authorities, but we left London to await this Bill. Under the Bill local authorities inside and outside Greater London can make arrangements for concessions with the L.T.E. and the other bus operators in the London area. With the Green buses, the arrangements will also apply to the London Country Bus Services Limited, the subsidiary of the National Bus Company, which will be taking over these services in the area at present covered by the L.T.B. The Bill enables concessions to be arranged on the tube services as well. We are giving the responsibility to the


London boroughs and the Common Council of the City of London.
In our view, these are the right bodies to carry out the job. They have welfare responsibilities, which the G.L.C. has not. Because they are more closely in touch with the particular needs of the people, it is for them to decide the scope and type of concessions that they are willing to grant. They are not fettered in any way at all, there is no mileage limit. I realise that some hon. Members feel that London needs an overall scheme, devised and operated by the G.L.C, but we do not believe this is the right answer. The London boroughs are large compared with some of the small authorities which have been given this power under the Transport Act. We have given it down to district council level in other parts of the country, and if a district council can successfully operate these concessions, there is no London borough which should not be able to do so, given the will to do so.

Mr. Molloy: Can we assume that the local authorities giving the concessions will be able to think not merely in terms of the district they operate, but of all the local authorities?

Mr. Brown: I have already said that there are no mileage limits placed upon them. It might be that the London councils will get together and agree on a London-wide scheme. This is a matter for them to discuss.
The hon. Member for Finchley made great play about operating powers. I want to continue with the bus and Underground services, and deal with the operating powers to be given to the L.T.B. The hon. Lady argued that they are too wide and that we should take steps to place a mileage or geographical limit on the exercise of these powers. In the Government's view, these arguments are misconceived.
London is a special case. It is the capital city. The geographical extent of London is very wide, and I am referring not only to Greater London, but to the wide catchment area surrounding London whose transport services must be related to the existence of London. These facts mean that future transport developments might well make any limitation completely unrealistic. We need to place the L.T.E. in a position to do the job laid

down by the Bill—to provide services which best meet the needs of Greater London. That is what the Bill does. We split hairs when we talk about providing adequate services and providing services which best meet the needs of Greater London.
To give an example, it might be decided that a new London Airport should be situated well outside the Greater London area. Perhaps London Transport has the skills and experience to build and operate the kind of rapid transit link needed to get passengers into central London. It would be patently absurd to discover at that stage that the Executive did not have the basic capacity and power to allow it to offer such a service.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that precisely this power is built into the 1962 Measure.

Mr. Brown: We are simply putting it in today's legislation, which is right.
There are plenty of safeguards to ensure that London Transport cannot go beyond its terms of reference. Clearly, there is no intention that it should run long-distance rail services or compete on an overnight coach service to Edinburgh. Its services will be related to London and its environs, as the Bill makes clear. There are adequate safeguards in the form of Parliamentary procedures involved in, say, a railway extension, and traffic commissioner control on longdistance bus operations.
We have heard about the fears of independent bus operators concerning the freedom which the Bill will give the L.T.E. in carriage contract operations. I agree that the Executive will have a freedom of manoeuvre which it has not had before, and these services are not subject to road service licensing. The fears have been overstated. In practical terms, the job of the Executive will be basically the job which it has at the moment.
The question of manufacturing powers has aroused great interest. This is clearly a thorny subject with hon. Members opposite. Strong views on it are held on my side of the house, too. It is fair to say that the G.L.C. is not entirely happy about it. On the one side, it has been argued that we should hold back the scope of London Transport more than we have in the Bill and that we should


place it in the same position which it was in under the Transport Act, 1962. On the other hand, it can be strongly argued that we should confer on the Executive the manufacturing freedom which the nationalised industries generally enjoy under the Transport Act, 1968. I am sure that some of my hon. Friends would strongly argue this point.
The proposals in the Bill are generally tailored to match the resources and new status of the London Transport Executive. The Executive will not be a nationalised industry. It will be a body placed in a novel way under local government control. It must have all the powers it needs to do its job properly, and it must be able to make reasonable use of the facilities and skills which it possesses. The Executive will be able to manufacture for itself, for the nationalised transport authorities and for the Greater London Council. This gives the Executive a wide field for development of its facilities. We do not think that it is right to deny an undertaking of the size and with the facilities of London Transport the basic powers which it needs to manufacture to this extent. We clearly must hold to this. The G.L.C. has no legitimate cause for complaint given the powers of direction that it will have.
There have been criticisms of the same kind about the powers concerning garage facilities at car parks. A similar power is conferred on the passenger transport executives under the Transport Act. Again, we believe it to be essential to give London Transport this power to provide such services on its own property. It may well be that it may not want to use the powers, and it might proceed by way of letting out concessions to other operators, but it should have the basic power if it wants to use it, again subject to G.L.C. directions, in case of need and also to put the Executive clearly on equal terms with other car park operators in negotiating concessions.
Great play has been made with the traffic and parking measures in the Bill, and the new licensing provisions for car parks have aroused interest not only in the House tonight but in this morning's newspapers. The first thing that I wish to make clear is that this is a provision that the G.L.C. has strongly urged upon my right hon. Friend. After listening

to the Council's views and discussing the matter with the London Boroughs Association, my right hon. Friend came to the opinion that the G.L.C. needed the powers in question. This is not a case of my right hon. Friend foisting anything on the G.L.C. This is something for which the G.L.C. has asked.
Hon. Members opposite have argued that the provision in respect of off-street car parking provided far too detailed control. What is proposed in Clause 36 is a new departure, and the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) asked a question about this. At first sight it might seem revolutionary. Close examination does not bear out the theory that the control is too detailed. After what my right hon. Friend has said, I hope that hon. Members will feel able in general to accept the principle of full control over the provision of off-street car parking. It would be convenient if such control could be exercised by a general statement or pious expression of broad policy such as that the Council could exercise broad control over the amount of off-street car parking in particular places and over the general level of the charges made for it.
The trouble is that any such arrangement is untranslatable in terms of a Bill and would be quite ineffective in operation when dealing with the situation which we are trying to deal with in London. The only way to turn a general parking policy into practical reality in the existing London situation is to devise a licensing system and to specify in detail points which may be considered in the licensing arrangements.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Ordered:
That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Eight Members, Four to be nominated by the House and Four by the Committee of Selection:

Ordered:
That there shall stand referred to the Select Committee—

(a) any Petition against the Bill presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than 14th January, 1969, and
(b) any Petition which has been presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office and in which the Petitioners complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled-up Bill or of any matter which has arisen


during the progress of the Bill before the said Committee,

being a Petition in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents:

Ordered:
That if no such Petition as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) above is presented, or if all such Petitions are withdrawn before the meeting of the Committee, the Order for the committal of the Bill to a Select Committee shall be discharged and the Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee:

Ordered:
That any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Select Committee shall, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of his Petition, be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agents upon his Petition provided that it is prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard by his Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against that Petition:

Ordered:
That the Committee have power to report from day to day the Minutes of the Evidence taken before them:

Ordered:
That Three be the Quorum.—[Mr. Marsh.]

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Motion relating to Ways and Means, on Consideration of any Amendments which may be received from the Lords to the Sea Fisheries Bill, and on the Motion relating to Patents may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Marsh.]

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT (LONDON) [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified —

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to transport in and around Greater London, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) any sums required or authorised by that Act to be so paid; and
(b) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums falling to be so paid under any other Act;

(2) the making of provision by that Act for the extinguishment of the liability of the London Transport Board in respect of debts due from that body to the Minister of Transport.—[Mr. Marsh.]

WAYS AND MEANS

TRANSPORT (LONDON)

Resolved,
1. That it is expedient to authorise any incidental or consequential charges to any tax (including charges having retrospective effect) which may arise from any amendment made by any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to transport in and around Greater London to the definition of 'relevant grant' in section 35 (3) of the Finance Act 1966 or to the definition of 'investment grant' in section 83 (4) of the Capital Allowances Act, 1968.
2. That it is expedient to authorise the payment into the National Loans Fund of any sums required to be so paid by or in consequence of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to transport in and around Greater London.—[Mr. Marsh.]

GREATER LONDON, KENT AND SURREY ORDER

10.2 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): I beg to move,
That the Greater London, Kent and Surrey Order, 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 7th November, be approved.
This Order provides for the alteration of three areas on the outer boundary of Greater London. Its effect is to transfer these three areas back to the counties of which they formed part before 1965. The Knockholt area of the London Borough of Bromley will go to Sevenoaks Rural District in Kent, the Farleigh area of Croydon will become part of Godstone Rural District in Surrey, and the Hooley area of Croydon will be transferred to Banstead Urban District in Surrey. Hon. Members will have noted from the figures in the Explanatory Memorandum on page 32 that the number of people involved is comparatively small, about 5,000 in all.
I do not wish to weary the House, but as this is the first time that such an Order has been brought before it in connection with Greater London perhaps I might say that there are provisions here which are somewhat exceptional.
When the Greater London Council and the London boroughs were being set up, the then Administration proceeded, as I think was wise, on the basis that the new units would be defined as far as possible by reference to the existing boundaries of the then local authorities. The outer areas of the G.L.C. also followed the general local government boundaries at the time. This was a perfectly proper and sensible practice, the former Administration decided that their guiding principle, for the G.L.C, should be that it really consisted of the built-up areas of this great conurbation.
Broadly speaking, this has been true of the whole area, with the absorption of Middlesex, the old L.C.C. and other areas, so that in the end there is a unit which is, in general, comprised of an almost totally built-up area within the conurbation. There were, however, a certain number of areas on the fringe of

Greater London where this principle did not quite fit. There were a number of areas on the southern fringes where, for example, some open country was included in the boundaries of Greater London because they had been within the boundaries of the previous local authorities.
It was felt desirable by the then Administration that provision should be made in the London Government Act for alterations of the boundary, on more mature consideration of detailed points, which the passage time had allowed. Part of the provision in Section 6 was previously known as the Knockholt Amendment, because the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), who had fought for a long time in the interests of Knockholt, was anxious that there should be power in the Measure to transfer areas which were subsequently thought desirable by the residents.
Section 6 therefore contains this provision, which is almost without parallel. I say "almost" because a similar provision appears in the old London Metropolitan Acts. As far as I know, it does not exist elsewhere. We are, therefore, in addition to arranging for local government boundary changes initiated by a local authority, making changes initiated by a proportion of electors. It is important, in this connection, that I should emphasise that the proportion must be either 300 electors or 10 per cent. of the electorate in the area; in this case Knockholt.
This was not a plebiscite. They were not making a decision. They were only starting a procedure. We had received another petition, received long after the public inquiry was held. The original petition contained many signatories and was presented to the Minister by the hon. Member for Orpington on 1st April, 1965, the very first day permitted by the Act. Indeed, the number of signatories was greater than the number contained in the second petition. To some extent this is immaterial, because what Section 6 does is to provide machinery whereby the initiative is left to local residents.
As I say, on the first day when it was possible for such a petition to be presented, the hon. Member for Orpington presented one, with more than the required number of persons having signed to the effect that they would like to go


out of the G.L.C. area and return to the County of Kent. This, therefore, was the first time that this provision was used. An inquiry was eventually held into the proposal for the transfer.
As to Knockholt, there has arisen—very late in the day—a suggestion of opposition. There was a five-day inquiry in 1966 into the consequences of altering the boundaries. At that inquiry some of the matters in the petition submitted recently were referred to. That is not to say that we should not consider this second petition. Indeed, we have considered it. However, most of the matters it deals with were referred to in detail at the inquiry and questions were answered to the satisfaction of the inspector and my right hon. Friend; the fears which have been expressed in the second petition are not justified.
My right hon. Friend, after considering the inspector's Report, decided that it would be right to acquiesce in the wishes of what seemed to be a very large proportion of the inhabitants. At the time of the inquiry there was no opposition to those wishes from local inhabitants. The hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. Hunt) is probably familiar with this. There is a history in Knock-holt of the local people not wanting to be associated with either the G.L.C. or with the local authority which the hon. Gentleman represents. This history goes back to 1929.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will help me. He knows that he cannot amend his own Order and that nobody in this debate can amend it. I hope that what he is saying is linked with the Order.

Mr. Skeffington: I am only trying to be helpful to the House. However, I take your point, Sir. This history goes back to 1929. The matter arose again in 1932 when Knockholt lost its rural parish status; when the Orpington Urban District Council was formed there was objection from Knockholt. In 1962, when the proposals for the G.L.C. area were made and after the Royal Commission on Local Government in Greater London had examined the position, Knockholt expressed the wish to be excluded. This position has held throughout the passage of the London

Government Act. It is a case with which the hon. Member for Orpington has sympathised and which he has presented very vigorously in the House at various times, certainly during the proceedings in Committee on the London Government Bill. Now we are going ahead.
The Order is detailed, as these Orders always are. It follows the usual pattern. Provision is made for every contingency—jury service, police, children, licensing, etc. All this has been carefully checked. It is in common form, and I hope that it will be acceptable to the House.
I need say little about the other areas comprised in the Order. I emphasise that in the case of both Farleigh and Hooley there has been the utmost consultation with the local authorities. At one stage the G.L.C. contested the position, but since the Minister announced his decision we have had the utmost cooperation from them, and I do not think that there is any objection to the Order from them.
Broadly speaking, Knockholt and Farleigh have a similarity in character, as to either the whole or part of them. They are designated as areas of outstanding natural beauty or of high landscape value. They have a rural character.
This Order will enable these three areas, following opinions expressed at the inquiry, to go back to having a parish council, a form of administration which has some advantages where the setting is rural. There has been no opposition to the Order except the very recent opposition in the case of Knockholt.
Some hon. Members may ask why we are introducing the Order now when we are still waiting for the report of the Royal Commission. The simple answer is that the Royal Commission, although it can take note of the position of London, is dealing with areas outside Greater London. Consequently, it does not affect the position of this transfer. Further, even if the Royal Commission felt that it was obliged to make recommendations about the existing Greater London area, which I do not think that it would, it would be a number of years before any alteration could be made by Statute. Consequently, in the case of these three districts where the desire has been expressed, either by the inhabitants


or the local authorities, for transfer, we thought it right to go ahead, after having made the most careful inquiries and after the utmost consultation with the local authorities. I hope, therefore, that the House will consider this a reasonable Order and give it its blessing.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I am grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for his kind remarks about the part I played during the Committee stage of the London Government Act, 1963. As a result of representations I had received from the inhabitants of Knock-holt, in my constituency, I moved an Amendment to allow a proportion of the inhabitants of any area on the edge of Greater London to make representations for transfer to a neighbouring authority.
As the hon. Gentleman has rightly pointed out, the inhabitants of Knockholt were the first to take advantage of this provision. Indeed, as I have said, they were the first people to draw my attention to the need for such a provision. I was grateful when the then Minister of Housing and Local Government, after expressing some doubts in Committee, finally accepted such a provision when the Bill reached another place.
The people of Knockholt have, as the hon. Gentleman remarked, been steadfast in their determination to opt out of the London area for many years. He has recapitulated the history of the matter. The most recent event was when they presented a petition asking for the provisions of Section 6 (4) of the London Government Act to be brought into operation. A substantial majority of the inhabitants of the village supported those representations. As a result, a public inquiry was held and the Report of the inspector to the Minister contained a recommendation that the village should be transferred to the neighbouring authority of Kent.
It is necessary for me to say a few words because, since the inquiry and the Minister announced his decision, some opposition has been expressed by a minority of the inhabitants to the move. It is necessary to give very careful consideration to this opposition, although we may not support it.
I have had letters from residents in the village expressing anxiety about the

position of education under the new move. I have been into the matter with some care because I appreciate the anxieties of the parents. I wrote to the Chief Education Officer of Kent, who sent me an extremely helpful answer. I understand that, since he wrote, he or one of his staff has been to the village and has explained what the Kent Education Committee has in mind for the education of the children of the village. He pointed out to me in his letter of 26th August, 1968:
So far as secondary modern school pupils are concerned, provision would be available at Sevenoaks, where the Wildernesse Secondary School for Boys and Hatton Secondary School for Girls both take 'O' level G.C.E. as well as the C.S.E. examination. Each school is highly esteemed in the locality.
In relation to selection—although we hope that selection will not last for long—he explained that the Kent Education Committee has
… limited quotas of places at Sevenoaks School (boys) and Walthamstow Hall (girls). The alternatives to these are the grammar schools at Tonbridge or the technical high schools at Tunbridge (girls) and Tunbridge Wells (boys)".
It has been suggested by some objectors that the travelling time for pupils from the village attending these schools will be very much longer than their travelling time for attending schools in the London Borough of Bromley.
It is worth remarking here that the train journey to Tonbridge takes only 20 minutes with a change at Sevenoaks for Tunbridge Wells. That journey is not at all difficult when compared with some of the journeys undertaken by pupils attending schools in the London Borough of Bromley. Only if, for example, they attend St. Olave's grammar school for boys, is there a direct bus service from Knockholt, and in many cases the changes involved make the journey as long as 1½ hours for pupils going from Knockholt to the schools in my borough. The journey time is, therefore, not a very important factor in this decision, although it is weighing heavily on the minds of some parents.
I do not think there is much to choose between the standard of education of the Kent education authority and of the London Borough of Bromley. I am very proud of the schools in my constituency and in the London Borough of Bromley as a whole, but if we are quite


honest with ourselves we have to admit that Kent has just as good schools, and that the Knockholt children will not in any way be disadvantaged by being sent to the schools of the Kent education authority rather than those of the London Borough of Bromley. Indeed, until very recently, as the Orpington urban district we came under the Kent education authority, so we are only reverting to a position which existed as little as four years ago.
The other point which seems to have caused some of my constituents anxiety is the position of the police officers in the village. Although this may seem a very small matter since only two officers are involved, it should be referred to, because in these local government changes one must be concerned to see that, as far as possible, no one is placed under any disadvantage. I wrote to the Home Secretary about the position of these two officers, and he very kindly conceded that they would continue to be employed by the Metropolitan Police and not be transferred to the Kent Police Authority; and that, moreover, they could remain in occupation of the houses which are at present owned by the authority. My sole remaining concern is whether the two officers will be allowed to remain in these houses after their retirement which, in one case, may not be very far distant.
These may seem very minor matters in comparison with the overall question of whether Knockholt should be transferred to Kent, but it is up to us to consider the needs and the future of every inhabitant of a village which may be transferred. I am convinced as the result of the very careful inquiries I have made that the majority of the people in the village are still absolutely determined to be transferred to Kent. From the very beginning of this controversy, I have said that the views of the inhabitants of the village should be paramount in any decision which may subsequently be made by the Minister of Housing and Local Government. It was for that reason that I tabled my Amendment to the London Government Bill in 1963.
In spite of the petition which the Minister has received in the last few days—not all the signatures to which are

valid, though I will not go into that in any detail, as it is not very relevant—by far the majority of the people there wish to be transferred to the Kent County Council and to opt out of the Greater London area. That is a consideration which should be uppermost in the minds of hon. Members in deciding whether or not to agree to the Order. I hope that, after a battle lasting for more than five years, the wishes of Knockholt will be respected.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. John Hunt: I intervene only briefly. I join the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) in thanking the Parliamentary Secretary for the background information he gave in introducing this Order.
I intervene only because I have received a number of representations on this matter. While I fully accept that initially there was considerable support in the Knockholt area for transfer to Kent, but now, having had experience of life in the London Borough of Bromley for the past three years, the people of Knockholt have found it much better than they anticipated.

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Member must be joking.

Mr. Hunt: I can only assess the comments I have received. Perhaps the result of the recent local elections in Knockholt bear out what I have said. There is no doubt that there are second thoughts in the area. I understand that almost 50 per cent. of the residents have now signed a counter-petition.

Mr. Lubbock: No.

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Members says "No", but I gather there were nearly 500 signatures.

Mr. Lubbock: I am sorry to keep interrupting the hon. Member, but there were 420 signatures of which many were illegible. The hon. Member has forced me to mention this. Often there was the name signed by the head of a household and, in the same writing, the names of children.

Mr. Hunt: In any petition one finds that sort of anomaly. I still maintain that a substantial number of people in Knockholt are having second thoughts


on this matter. There is a real fear in the village of a lowering of standards of services if the transfer takes place.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that he cannot amend this Order. He can denounce it because Knockholt is transferred or because Knockholt is not transferred, but he cannot amend it.

Mr. Hunt: I am trying to enumerate the fears to persuade the Parliamentary Secretary to withdraw the Order. Some of the fears are based, as the hon. Member for Orpington said, on the question of education. There are also fears about refuse disposal. People of Knockholt have discovered that if they go into the Sevenoaks area their dustbins will be emptied twice a month instead of every week as at present under Bromley Borough Council. Clinic facilities for old people and nursing mothers will be substantially reduced. These are some of the things which have caused second thoughts and created fears in the village.
For that reason it is a pity that the Government have decided to proceed with this Order. I should prefer the whole matter to be delayed for a little longer so that a further assessment, in view of local feeling and the fears expressed to me and others, could be more fully taken into account.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: The House is asked tonight to approve a draft Order. It is one of the anomalies of our procedure that we might express this in the form of a riddle: when is a draft not a draft? When it comes before the House as a draft, because, as you pointed out, Mr. Speaker, we have no opportunity of amending this draft Order. It is a matter of take it or leave it, all or nothing.
It is unfortunate that in this case the Order deals with three distinct subjects. It deals with the transfer of three areas of land from Greater London Council to neighbouring counties. To that extent it deals with something of the same category in all three cases, but the circumstances are very different. They are not different only because two cases apply to Surrey and the other to Kent, but because the cases for and against the transfers are different. They are certainly

different when one compares the two areas being transferred from Croydon to Surrey with that being transferred from Bromley to Kent.
In the first two cases, the area of Hooley goes to Banstead Urban District Council and Farleigh goes to the God-stone Rural District Council. An inquiry was held, which also inquired into the transfer of two other areas from the Greater London Council. At the inquiry there seemed to be no very great objection to the transfers.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty), into whose constituency the Croydon areas are to be transferred, informs me that he approves of the Order in that respect. He has also asked me to apologise for it being impossible for him to be in the Chamber this evening. He is, I think in this respect, voicing the views of the local authorities concerned. The Greater London Council was objecting at one time and did in fact put in an objection during the course of the public inquiries; but Croydon, the local authority most concerned with the transfer away from it, remained neutral throughout, and, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, has given every co-operation in the transfer of Hooley and Farleigh to Banstead and Godstone respectively.
I cannot say that there has been all that co-operation and all that lack of opposition in the third case, Knockholt. The Parliamentary Secretary has informed us that the Minister has received opposition, albeit late opposition, to this transfer. Looking at the conclusions of the inspector at the end of a long inquiry, I wonder what conclusions he did reach.

Mr. Lubbock: Would the hon. Member say why he has bothered to ascertain the views of the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) on two of these transfers, when he could not be bothered to attend the debate, but he has not bothered to seek my views on the other transfer, and I have bothered to attend?

Mr. Page: I think that it is most ungracious of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), when I have offered apologies for the inability of my hon. and learned Friend the Member


for Surrey East, to be here, that he should make that comment.

Mr. Lubbock: It is not. It is frank.

Mr. Page: I have tonight heard the views of the hon. Member for Orpington I am not sure that I entirely agree with them, having read the report of the inquiry. This is the point that I was trying to put to show that it is unfortunate that the Order includes all three transfers—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Orpington wishes to put a point and interrupt me, perhaps he will do it in a proper way and not in a sedentary position.

Mr. Lubbock: I will be delighted. How many times has the hon. Member been to Knockholt and to whom among the inhabitants has he spoken before making this speech?

Mr. Page: I do not think that a Member is called upon to visit every area upon which he speaks. I have read the Report of the inquiry and I find that the conclusions of the inspector are not entirely carried out by the conclusions of the Minister. For example where the Minister comes to his conclusion that the local residents strongly favour transfer to Kent, that does not tally with the conclusion reached by the inspector. Nor does the inspector's conclusion tally with what we have heard from the hon. Member from Orpington this evening. In paragraph 179 of the Report, the inspector says:
The representative character of the Knock-holt Transfer Committee and their method of obtaining signatures to the petition leave me in no doubt that the proposal is a true reflection of the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants of Knockholt Ward and, as such, appropriately falls under Section 6 (4) of the London Government Act, 1963. Apart from some doubt upon the accuracy of the percentage claimed by the petitioners, the London authorities are also satisfied that the petition is entirely proper.
Apparently, since then, the percentage claim by the Knockholt transfer committee has been questioned by the opposition which the Minister has now received.
It is questionable whether this opposition, received late by the Minister, should not have persuaded him to bring in different Orders for these different transfers. It is most unfortunate that it was

decided to bring in one Order for the three transfers. In one case there were transfers without any real opposition; in the other, as the Parliamentary Secretary has admitted, there was opposition—

Mr. Lubbock: Could the hon. Member say who has drawn his attention to the fact that this petition has been received by the Minister against the transfer, what steps he has taken to check the validity of the signatures on it, and whether he is satisfied that all those signatures are valid?

Mr. Page: The Minister has already told the House that he has received a petition in opposition to the transfer. I am not concerned with whether every signature on it is valid or not, nor am I concerned with whether every signature on the original petition requesting the transfer was valid or not.

Mr. Lubbock: The inspector was.

Mr. Page: The inspector, of course, was, when he was conducting the inquiry, because it was for him to discover whether the inquiry had been properly initiated under the proper Section of the 1963 Act. The fact remains that there is and has been opposition to this part of the Order, which confirms my belief that the Order should not have included both the opposed case and the transfer into Surrey, which was practically unopposed.

Mr. Skeffington: I hope that I can reassure all hon. Members. I do not want to go too deeply into the differences between the hon. Members for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), because they have both put their points very well, but I should say that it is education more than anything else which has given rise to fears. The Ministry got in touch with the Kent County Council to assure themselves on this point, and only yesterday we received a letter from the clerk to the county council, that concluding paragraph of which has been supplied by the Education Department, and which says:
Anyone concerned in this matter"—
the transfer of Knockholt—
can be assured that Kent realises to the full that there must be no question of children in an area returning to Kent having an education inferior to the education they have under present arrangements.


This is a declaration of intent, and knowing Kent, where I live, as does the hon. Member for Orpington, I know that they will be able to substantiate what they say there. I know that the hon. Member for Orpington has made some similar inquiries and he has given some reassuring information on that.
I am glad that the hon. Member has satisfied himself by direct contact with the Home Office on the major point about the police. As to whether or not the two police constables can remain in their present dwellings, that is a matter for the Kent Constabulary, and is not one in which the Ministry has jurisdiction. It may be a matter which the hon. Gentleman feels that he should take up with that authority in due course.
The hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. John Hunt), considering that his constituency is losing something, put his points with moderation, as I would expect of him.
The desire which has been expressed for such a long time in Knockholt is for the area to remain a rural area. The people there want a parish council. They want to be a rural area rather than in an urban area with an urban structure. I have not found, in reading the evidence of the inquiry or subsequently, any criticism of the standard of services in the area. One hopes that that position will be maintained.
On the question of numbers on the petitions, I said in opening that the petition we received recently did not contain as many signatures as did the original, but the first petition was only to set the procedure for transfer going, and we must not give too much attention to the numbers of signatures.
As far as I can see, all the grounds in the second petition, except the education point, were covered at the five-day inquiry. There was no substantial expression of opposition from anybody in the locality at the inquiry. The only opposition then was from the local authorities. That should reassure the hon. Member for Crosby.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we could have waited a little longer. I always like to take time and sleep on things, but these boundary changes take a very long time, and one of my criticisms concerns time it takes to get any-

thing altered in this matter. After the London Government Act, during the passage of which all these points were raised, we received the proposal for the transfer of Knockholt on 1st April, 1965. We waited more than a year for the local inquiry into the Knockholt proposal in October, 1966, and then there was another year before the Minister gave his decision. The draft Order was laid last month. I do not know how much longer the hon. Gentleman thinks we should wait. If we waited much longer we should probably never do it, so there is not much in the plea for further delay.
The latest petition largely arises from fears about education. All the other matters were discussed at the inquiry at Knockholt. I hope that the passage I read from the letter received from the Kent County Council only yesterday, dated 16th December, shows that it will certainly take its responsibilities very seriously. Children in primary education will continue to go to their present schools. In the provision of secondary education, I think that Kent will do as well as the G.L.C.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Greater London, Kent and Surrey Order. 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 7th November, be approved.

AGRICULTURE (LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY)

10.43 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): I beg to move,
That the Livestock and Livestock Products Industries (Payments for Scientific Research) Order 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 26th November, be approved.
The purpose of the Order is to resume payments of the industry's contribution towards the cost of the Meat Research Institute which were interrupted when the Meat Industry (Scientific Research Levy) Order, 1963, was revoked in 1966. When the Order was revoked, it was made clear that the payments would be resumed under the authority of the Agriculture Bill, then in preparation, which became the Agriculture Act, 1967.
Part I of the Act set up the Meat and Livestock Commission, and Section 16, under which the draft Order is made.
gives powers either to provide a contribution as part of the Commission's general levy or as part of a separate levy.
The Order, as was foreshadowed at the time of the passage of the Order authorising the Commission's genera] levy, uses the method of obtaining a contribution from the Meat and Livestock Commission which will be financed out of the Commission's general levy. The Order merely provides the means of transferring the sums from the Commission to the Agricultural Research Council. It does not increase the size of the Commission levy or require any further payments from the industry.
It would, perhaps, be helpful to the House if I went over a little of the history of the Meat Research Institute and its financing. The decision to set it up was taken in 1961, and it resulted in an amalgamation and extension of the work which was being done in the Department's laboratories in London and Fareham and at the A.R.C.'s Low Temperature Research Station at Cambridge. Though much of importance had been achieved, there was an absence of experimental and, particularly, slaughterhouse facilities, and these were essential if really significant work on the quality of meat was to be undertaken.
At the time when the then Government decided to set up the Institute, they decided also that the meat industry should contribute half the capital and running costs. The original levy Order imposed a levy in equal shares on buyers and sellers and was collected through the machinery of the Fatstock Guarantee Scheme in respect of cattle and sheep, while for pigs the Pig Industry Development Authority made a voluntary contribution from the proceeds of its own levy equivalent to the amount of levy due on pigs.
This method of collection, however, ran into difficulties in 1964 and 1965, when there were periods when no guarantee was payable to producers of cattle and sheep, since the levy system involved the buyer paying the seller half the levy at the time of sale and the whole levy being deducted from the producer's guarantee payment. When there was no guarantee, the buyers paid their share of the levy at the time of sale, but there

was no guarantee payment from which to get the levy back from the producer.
It was for this reason that the levy Order was revoked and new powers were taken in the Agriculture Act, 1967. It was made clear at the time of the Order's revocation that the temporary cessation of the levy did not in any way alter the intention that the industry should contribute over the life of the Institute taken as a whole half of the full costs.
The purely technical financial difficulties have not prevented progress with the establishment of the Institute. It has been established at Langford near Bristol and was opened by Her Majesty the Queen in April of this year. A great deal of highly important and useful work is already in hand. The Institute's main task is to provide by means of anatomical, physiological and biochemical studies basic information on the growth and development of meat tissues and on factors which influence the quality of meat.
It will also study the effect on eating quality of such factors as breeding, age, sex, feeding systems, pre-slaughter treatment, slaughtering methods and post-slaughter treatment. Investigations are being made also into changes in the structure and composition of meat under various conditions of storage and processing, and the Institute is particularly concerned to eliminate causes of taints and off-flavour, spoilage and other hazards. Some attention is being given to packaging problems, too.
The Order lays down the industry's contribution to this important work up to the end of March. 1972. It seems reasonable to make clear at this stage to all concerned and affected the general size of this contribution for a reasonable time ahead. It is true that the sums now required are in excess of the annual sum of £165,000 which the Commission provisionally allowed for in its programme of work published in May this year. However, further study of the needs and the development of the Institute shows that this sum would not be adequate to cover the industry's share over the whole period, and we think that it is in everybody's interest that the same amount should be required in each of the three years. Half of the annual amount is being required in the current financial year since the collection of the Commission's levy began only in October, 1968.
The sums required will accord with the principle, which has been followed since 1961, that the industry should in the long term contribute half the current and capital costs of the Institute. The work of the Institute is of great importance and will be of substantial benefit to consumers and to all sections of the meat industry.
The general principle of financing is not in dispute between the two sides of the House. The sum required of the industry is not excessive, and it is being collected in the most painless way, as part of the Commission's general levy.
This Order is not in itself a levy raising Order, but merely provides for the transfer of funds from the Meat and Livestock Commission to the Agricultural Research Council, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have no hesitation in commending it to the House.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: I want to speak about a disease in sheep known as scrapie and to direct attention to the necessity for some of the money being voted tonight to be spent on furthering research into the disease. My credentials for speaking on the subject are that I was a breeder of pedigree sheep and ram exporter of pedigree rams to Australia, New Zealand and North America.
In 1951, some sheep from this country were imported into Australia where the disease of scrapie was detected. A ban was imposed on the importation of sheep into Australia, and New Zealand followed by a similar ban on their import into the United States and Canada. The result has been that our pedigree rams have been excluded since 1951 from those countries although, I believe—I am not sure about this—that some relief has been given in North America. However, in the main market of Australasia no import of sheep is allowed because of the disease of scrapie.
Scrapie is a peculiar disease and it has excited a great deal of attention by the veterinary profession over the years, but not enough has been done to find a solution to the problem. The disease is not itself a killer. It affects the wool of a sheep. The wool begins to come off and the sheep staggers about, but

what kills the animal is that the irritation of the skin is so great that the animal simply cannot take time off from scratching to eat and so it dies.
When the disease was found in Australia and New Zealand ram breeders in this country were extremely put out because a lucrative market for our rams was closed to us and a scheme was started at the Agricultural Research Council's research centre at Compton under Dr. Gordon, who is no longer there. It was a very good scheme. We all gave a number of sheep. I think that those most concerned gave two to the centre in order that experiments might be conducted to see whether the sheep would get scrapie. Many of them did, and I suspect that a great deal of information was discovered.
However, somehow the whole scheme seemed to peter out and no satisfactory result has been obtained. So far as I know, little or no money and time have been spent of late years on work on this disease which is preventing the export of British stock to these countries. Not only is this trade immensely lucrative to sheep farmers, but it is good for British prestige in foreign countries that our rams, like our bulls and stallions, should bring about a greater appreciation of British agriculture.
I hope that with this money it will be possible for more efforts to be made to solve this problem. I realise that there is a certain vested interest in Australia and New Zealand which is none too keen to see the problem solved. They like to sell their rams to each other, and this would mean that there would be more competition. The pressure on the veterinary services in those countries is naturally very strong to see that the ban is on no account removed. I do not quarrel with that because it is important to keep any disease away from sheep when it might run through the national herd. If it happened to the Merino breed it would be a terrible thing for Australia. One can understand that the veterinary surgeons there are very keen to see that the ban is maintained.
I am not at all happy that the right amount of money and attention is being devoted to this problem. What is happening? What is being done following on the work done by Dr. Gordon at Compton 10 years ago? Where have


we got, and what is it proposed to do in future? This is a legitimate British agricultural interest which is being neglected. Something should be done to get to the bottom of this disease and isolate the virus so that this ban, which is so deleterious to our Commonwealth trade can be removed.

10.57 p.m.

Sir Frank Pearson: I do not want to delay the House at this late hour, but the Minister has said that these funds will be transferred from the funds of the Livestock Commission. When we debated the Commission I remember that there were many of us who had serious doubts as to whether it was right to raise levies from a very narrow sector of slaughtering interests, to spend them on general research and the organisation of the meat trade. When the Minister suggests that we transfer funds from the Commission for research, I am even more doubtful whether we were right at that time to agree to this levy on the slaughter of animals being put into the pockets of the Commission.
I do not recollect that the Minister then proposed that some of these monies should in future be transferred for other purposes. My hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) raised this interesting and important point about scrapie, and the export of pedigree animals to Australia and New Zealand, am doubtful whether the funds for this type of research ought to have been raised by the methods we have agreed. This is clearly a sphere of research which ought to be financed directly, either by the industry or the Government. It ought not to be raised for the purposes of the Meat and Livestock Commission and then transferred.
I would be interested to hear how the Minister justifies this transfer. It is only a matter of a few months since the Commission started operating. There has been considerable hostility to it on the part of many sections of the trade, and up to date I have not heard of any useful function having been performed by it. I remember when we had the debate on the Commission the Minister proposed that, for pigs, everything would go on as before. With regard to research in beef and sheep, there was to be a two-year delay.
I should be grateful if the Minister could assure us that although he is transferring these funds from the Meat and Livestock Commission to this other purpose, this will in no way inhibit the work of the Livestock Commission.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. We are not debating the Livestock Commission tonight, but merely the appropriation of the funds.

Sir Frank Pearson: I entirely agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the House is entitled to have the assurance that the operations of the Meat and Livestock Commission will not be in any way inhibited by these funds being transferred to this other purpose. That is the only point I wish to make. We are due for an explanation from the Minister of how this will affect the operations of the Meat and Livestock Commission.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: No one with experience of draft Statutory Instruments expects to find the whole story revealed clearly in the actual document. Therefore, we are grateful to the Minister for the explanation he has given us tonight of the way in which the Order will be applied. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be dealing mostly with the Meat Research Institute. There are one or two questions that I should like to ask him about that and one or two things that I should like to hear about that which he might have wanted to include in his remarks.
Before coming to that, however, we see at the beginning of the Statutory Instrument that not only does the Minister seek to make the Order under Section 16 of the Agriculture Act, 1967, but that it goes on to say
and of all other powers enabling them in that behalf.
I have looked at Section 16 of the Agriculture Act, 1967. It seems wide enough to enable the Minister to do almost anything he likes. Perhaps, therefore, he can explain why we need all the other powers in addition to Section 16.
I commend to the hon. Gentleman the remarks which have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) about scrapie. Those of us who have anything to do with livestock are well aware of the difficulties


which this causes, particularly in Australia and other places. My hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) has asked the Minister to explain about the funds of the Commission. I have no doubt that he has listened carefully to what has been said on that as well.
If the Minister looks at the last Report of the Agricultural Research Council, he will see that the Meat Research Institute then had a current expenditure of £254,000, a capital expenditure of £564,000 and receipts of £167,000, leaving a net total of £651,000. The total which is being provided under the Order is £98,000 to 31st March and £197,000 in each of the three subsequent years to 31st March, 1972. At first glance, therefore, it seems to me that there is a quite large sum which the Meat Research Institute managed to spend in the year ended 31st March, 1968, which, unless the hon. Gentleman can explain that he has other funds tucked away somewhere, it will not be able to expend in subsequent years.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman will recall that during the debates last July about the Meat and Livestock Commission Levy Order, his right hon. Friend the Minister said certain things about the Beef Recording Society. At the beginning of his remarks, the right hon. Gentleman said:
We have, for example, rightly used public money to get beef recording started.
He went on to say:
Government support will have been given to the Beef Recording Association for some five years, which is a good deal longer than might reasonably have been expected at the time, and a good deal longer than most hon. Members expected. It is, therefore, time for the industry to finance, through the Commission, what amounts to an investment in its own future.
The right hon. Gentleman then set out the way in which he expected the Commission to spend its money. Having dealt with three-quarters of the money that it was expected to spend, he went on to say:
The remaining quarter of the Commission's expenditure … includes sheep recording; carcase classification and evaluation in the interests of producing meat most suited to the requirements of the housewife … "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th July, 1968; Vol. 768, c. 1610–2.]

In the Civil Estimates for 1968–69 he will find that in 1967–68 a sum of £65,000 was set aside in the account for the Beef Recording Society and that in the current year a sum of only £10 is provided. I was therefore expecting that possibly the hon. Gentleman would say something about that tonight. If he is not going to do so, perhaps he will indicate, within the rules of order, how the Beef Recording Society will continue with only £10 in the current year. There are many things which I feel that society could usefully do. Certain people are critical of it and the hon. Gentleman has probably seen a very critical article in a recent issue of Beef and Sheep Farming, but many beef producers find that the services offered by the Beef Recording Society are extremely valuable, and I certainly hope that something will be said on this subject by the hon. Gentleman.
Another matter that I should like to raise relates to livestock products. That is, after all, one of the items mentioned in the Order. The final words of the Explanatory Note are:
… and the livestock products industry.
That industry is facing a somewhat different future compared with its past situation. There are substitute protein products, and there are acceptable synthetic products which may challenge the industry. Therefore, research in livestock products ought to receive attention, and the first matter which ought to receive considerable attention is the question of the quality and reliability of these products.
Another point that the Minister mentioned in his speech in July was carcase classification, on which the hon. Gentleman said nothing tonight. I would have thought that that might also be covered by research.
Finally I come to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe about the disquiet in the industry concerning the way in which this money is collected and spent. The first thing the trade will ask the Ministry is that there should be value for money, and what the trade wants in particular is practical technology as well as basic research. They want employed in research people who understand exactly what is going on in the industry and not simply people who


are doing research well away from those who are working on the farms.
I hope that before we part with this Order the Minister will deal with at least some of the points that I have raised.

11.9 p.m.

Mr. Hoy: I am glad to respond to the hon. Gentleman's invitation. I thought that I had given a fair amount of explanation of research in my opening speech. I did not go into every conceivable matter but I thought that I had covered a wide field and that the hon. Gentleman would have accepted it.
May I say to the hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) that the disease of scrapie is being studied by the A.R.C. It does not come within the province of the Research Institute, and therefore it does not come within the terms of this Order. I should have said so earlier, but I did not want to be accused of curtailing the debate. I thought that I ought to make it clear that this is the case, and I hope it will bring some consolation to the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) who thought that it ought not to be in the Order. We are aware of the importance of this disease. The Department and the A.R.C. are not only aware of its importance, but research is going on into it.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I apologise for introducing a matter which, apparently, was not in order. I consulted the Table, and the Clerks and I thought that it was in order. If it was not, I apologise for having raised the matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): The matter was in order. It is a matter that is covered by the A.R.C.

Mr. Hoy: I am not objecting to the matter having been raised. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman did raise it, because it has given me the opportunity to let the hon. Gentleman know that it has not been overlooked by the A.R.C. or by the Department.
The hon. Member for Clitheroe had some difficulty in understanding how the money came to be raised. The hon. Gentleman was not listening to my opening speech, or perhaps he was not here then. In the third paragraph of my speech I said:
At the time this Order"—

that is the old Order—
was revoked it was made clear that payments would be resumed under the authority of the Agriculture Bill, then in preparation, which finally became the Agriculture Act, 1967".
There was no lack of clarity. Indeed, the matter was made clear in Committee. I remember taking part in the debates on this, and I am certain that there could have been no misunderstanding.

Sir Frank Pearson: I did not accuse the hon. Gentleman of a lack of clarity. The clarity was there. The point that I wished to make was in connection with the levy from the slaughterers. At the time of our discussions about the Meat and Livestock Commission I had some doubt about whether the House understood that the money would be transferred to deal with this type of work.

Mr. Hoy: The hon. Gentleman will remember that this principle was laid down by his Government. The division of money as to half from the industry, and half from the Government, was laid down in those days. What we have done here it to carry out the same procedure. We have gone no further than that.
I was grateful for what the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Godman Irvine) said about my explanation, even though he thought that I ought to go a little further. The powers in the Order are being taken, not by the Minister, but by the Commission. We are making provision for the Commission.
It is true that last year the M.R.I, cost £254,000. Expenditure on the M.R.I. is not exactly 50 per cent. provided by the industry on a year-by-year basis, but over a period of years. The industry will pay 50 per cent. of the total cost, taking several years together, because the M.R.I., in its earlier years, includes much capital expenditure which is being spread over several years to spread the load as regards the industry's 50 per cent. That is why it is being done in this way.
Beef recording is not an element of this Order, but the Meat and Livestock Commission will carry on beef recording by means of its own funds. This is one of the jobs that it has been given.
The hon. Gentleman said that I did not say a great deal about the Institute. In my opening speech I paid tribute to


its work, and went to fair lengths to outline what it was doing. I said that the work of the Institute was of great importance and that it would be of substantial benefit to consumers and all sections of the meat industry. I regret that some hon. Gentlemen opposite do not consider that we have made sufficient provision in this matter. I thought that the hon. Member for Rye was arguing that instead of the sum of £197,000, £254,000 should have been made available to the M.R.I. If we have made a small economy, he should be grateful and accept that we are not making too great a demand on the resources of the industry.
I hope that I have answered the points that have been raised to the satisfaction of hon. Members and that we may now reach a decision on the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Livestock and Livestock Products Industries (Payment for Scientific Research) Order 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 26th November, be approved.

SEA FISHERIES BILL

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): I have to acquaint the House that a message has been brought from the Lords by one of their Clerks, as followeth:
The Lords have agreed to the Sea Fisheries Bill, with Amendments; to which the Lords desire the concurrence of this House.
Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith.—[Mr. Hoy.]

Considered accordingly.

Clause 4

PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO LEVIES WHICH MAY BE IMPOSED ON THE WHITE FISH AND HERRING INDUSTRIES

Lords Amendment No. 1: In page 4, line 36, at end insert:
in any manner specified in the directions, whether or not the application of those sums in that manner is authorised by the relevant provision or instrument.

11.16 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): I beg to

move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is necessary because, without it, there would be a doubt regarding the transfer of money between the White Fish Industry Fund and the Herring Fishery Fund. It might be arranged, for example, that the White Fish Authority should collect the levy paid on a product which contained both white fish and herring. The White Fish Authority could then be directed to transfer sums to the Herring Industry Board; and some doubt about that might exist if the Amendment were not made.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 22

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMEND MENTS AND REPEALS, AND SAVINGS

Lords Amendment No. 2: In page 15, line 37, at end insert:
(2A) Any reference to boats in the Herring Industry Act 1935, the Herring Industry Act 1944 or the White Fish and Herring Industries Act 1948 shall be construed as a reference to vessels."

Mr. Hoy: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): I suggest that it might be convenient for the House to consider at the same time Amendments No. 3 to No. 14.

Mr. Hoy: That is convenient, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful that hon. Gentlemen opposite also agree to that course.
These Amendments are either drafting and are needed to tidy up the Bill or have the sole purpose of assisting in the preparation of a consolidation Measure which we all hope to see shortly. With that simple explanation, I shall be available to answer any questions that hon. Members may ask on the subject.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: I seek the Minister's guidance on two points. The first concerns Schedule 1, Amendment No. 3 which proposes that
… for the word 'approval' there shall be substituted the word 'connivance'".
What is the subtle difference? Perhaps it is the same as the difference between


renown and notoriety. Approval is something which has an air of virtue about it while connivance is perhaps something which carries a distinct flavour of guilt.
Secondly, we read, in the same Amendment, that
… the definition of 'boat' shall cease to have effect.
According to the Herring Industry Act, 1935
'Boat' means a vessel which is constructed or adapted for use in herring fishing or in the herring fishing service or which is for the time being so used".
Can the Minister explain why this definition is no longer in use?

Mr. Kevin McNamara: The statement by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that at last we are to have some form of consolidation in the very tortuous world of Acts dealing with the fishing industry will be welcomed by anybody who has had to try to find his way through the Acts dealing with the industry. When shall we have the joy of consolidating?

Mr. Hoy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for those words. I cannot put a date to it. He can rest assured that we shall consolidate as soon as possible.
In answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), it makes it an offence not merely to have approved of the commission of an offence under the Act by a body corporate, but to have consented to or connived at any such commission. "Connivance" is used here in the sense of tacitly permitting or overlooking.
As to "boats" and "vessels", the Acts of 1935, 1944 and 1948 relating to the herring industry refer to boats as a term defined in the 1935 Act as
a vessel which is constructed or adapted for use in herring fishing or in the herring fishing service or which is for the time being so used".
Later Acts refer to "vessels" without definition, leaving it to the context to make it clear that only vessels engaged in the herring industry are concerned. The use of "vessels" in this way has proved satisfactory, and it is now proposed to

substitute "vessels" for "boats" in the earlier Acts and to repeal the definition of "boat". This is a verbal change which will make a consolidated Statute much shorter and simpler.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to [One with Special Entry].

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Bill referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

PATENT RULES

11.29 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I beg to move,
That the Patents (Amendment) Rules 1968 (S.I., 1968, No. 1702), dated 25th October 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st October, be withdrawn.
I apologise to the Minister of State for having kept him here late at night on what is by any standard a fairly minor matter. I shall not detain the House for long, but I hope that, having heard me, the Minister and the House will agree that the debate is not without point.
This Order embodies, on the face of it, nothing more than a very minor amendment of the Patent Rules, 1968. Perhaps I may refer, by way of brief explanation of the Order, to these rules, which are in Statutory Instrument No. 1389 of 1968. They were, in large measure, a consolidation of a substantial number of pre-existing rules in a number of Statutory Instruments going back for more than ten years. As such, the 1968 rules were very welcome.
Nearly two years ago, on 23rd March, 1967, I asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he would consolidate these rules, and he replied that he was taking steps to initiate the required procedure to do so—perhaps rather like the Constitutional Commission. I was grateful, as was the profession, when the consolidated Rules appeared and were laid before Parliament on 12th September last.
I have said that they were primarily consolidating but in two respects they went beyond consolidation and effected changes. It is necessary for the purposes of this Order to refer to only one of those changes. They were embodied in what is now Rule 146 of the 1968 Rules and it is Rule 146 that the Order seeks to amend.
Rule 146 achieves two things. First, it regularises the existing Patent Office practice of including in the Public File—the file open for public inspection—relating to a patent or patent application a limited range of documents. These documents were then, and had been for some time, available to be examined by the public.
Secondly, Rule 146 greatly extends the range of documents to be made available to the public inspection in this way. They now include, as they did not before, such things as the pleadings in a case—the statement of a case and the counter-statement. Where there is written evidence in inter-parts proceedings, this can now appear on the Public File, and those proceedings include such things as oppositions to an application, applications for revocation, applications for compulsory licences and applications for extension of the term.
We on this side very much welcome the general intent behind Rule 146. It will be bound to lead to a much greater openness in the patent proceedings and will be a significant development of Patent Office procedure. I believe that it is an extension which for some time has been advocated by the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents and is a matter about which, on principle, the Board of Trade and the Patent Office will have consulted the Institute before tabling the new Rules.
The Order is to take effect from the same date as the Patent Rules—1st November—because very soon after the Patent Rules had been tabled it was apparent that Rule 146, although eminently desirable in principle, was defective in form—at any rate, to the extent that it was open to varying interpretations. The Rules were expressed to come into operation on 1st November, but immediate doubt arose, as a result of its wording, as to whether Rule 146 was intended to operate retrospectively. In other words, did it impose on the Comptroller General a

duty to include in the Public File documents filed before 1st November? This obviously had to be clarified, and the present Order was made a little more than a month after the original, adding a new sub-paragraph (4), presumably making it clear that Rule 146 was not to operate retrospectively.
But, even with the amendment, the Rule is not clear. It has been put in a negative form. It reads:
Nothing in this Rule shall be construed as imposing upon the Comptroller the duty of making available for public inspection any documents filed with or sent to the Office before 1st November 1968.
It says not that only documents filed after 1st November must be made public but that the Patent Office is not bound to make public documents filed before 1st November.
As amended, Rule 146 appears to give the Patent Office a very wide discretion whether or not to publish the extended range of documents notwithstanding that they are filed before 1st November. This is not a very satisfactory state of affairs. It leaves the public and the patentees or applicants in some doubt as to their rights in the matter, and particularly in doubt as to whether any given document on the file will or will not be made public.
That is a matter of detail on the actual interpretation of the Order, but the matter of principle goes wider. We now have the position that the Rules were laid before Parliament in September to take effect from 1st November. Before they ever came into effect they were already amended, and the amendment was published, and the Order that we now have before us is also to take effect from 1st November. But I submit that, even now, it is not wholly clear and satisfactory.
I suggest that this is a matter for some concern. I have already welcomed the fact that consultations took place with the profession, and particularly with the Chartered Institute, on the principle of Rule 146, but was there no consultation on the detailed drafting of the Rule—either on the original Rule 146, which the Board of Trade has obviously now admitted to be defective, or even on the amending Order?
It is not the case that there has been any pressure of time or any undue haste. As I indicated, the previous President


of the Board of Trade, now the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Batter-sea, North (Mr. Jay), initiated this redrafting nearly two years ago, so there was ample time to consult the profession in order to make sure that this new rule appeared in the Statutory Instrument in an acceptable form.
I suggest to the Minister of State that it would have been wiser, and might have saved time and expenditure, if there had been proper consultation on the details as well as on the principle. I go further: I am prepared to hazard a guess that this is not the last amendment we shall see to the rule, but that further amendments will be necessary. For instance, one of the things already causing doubt in the profession relates to the duplicate forms 2 and 3 which are submitted when an application for a patent is filed. The question is: do both copies have to appear on the file?
This is not an academic question, as the Minister will know. The first copy is that which is dealt with by the Examiner, and it may well be substantially amended as a result of his representations to the applicants. If both the original and the amended document have to appear on the file, there are likely to be considerable misgivings on the part of applicants for patents, yet the Rule does not make clear whether it relates only to the document which the Examiner has approved or to the other as well.
Another point on which there is some doubt is that Rule 146 (3) (a) entitles the Controller to keep off the public file a document which the person filing it requests shall be treated as confidential. Suppose a document—for instance, a statement of evidence—is followed by a counter-statement of evidence which repeats in some detail whole passages from the excluded document, and the person filing that does not request that it should be kept off the file. The whole purpose of the original exclusion will have been defeated.
These are points of actual practical importance in the operation of Rule 146. I dare say that if I went further I should be straying beyond the rules of order. I hope that I have said enough to show the Minister of State that I am not too

wide of the mark in suggesting that we shall have further amendments to this rule. I am prepared to give an undertaking that, if the Minister considers these and other points, I will resist the temptation to say "I told you so". I will not reiterate complaints about lack of consultation, but will do my best to speed these changes through with as fair a wind as possible. I do not want to say anything tonight which could inhibit the authorities in bringing forward desirable amendments. On the contrary, I am anxious to ensure that the system is as satisfactory as it can be made.
The profession outside the Patent Office can offer valuable assistance to those who have to draw up these rules. They are on the other side of the table and perhaps see matters in a different light from those in the Department and in no less a relevant light than that of officers of the Patent Office. My plea for more consultation on the detail of the changes is in no way intended as a reflection on the competence of the able and immensely hard-working men who staff the Patent Office. I am concerned solely to achieve the best results. It is only because I am not entirely satisfied that Rule 146, even with this amendment, will operate in the most satisfactory way that I have thought it right to move this Motion and give the Minister of State an opportunity to explain what the rule is intended to do.

11.38 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edmund Dell): I thank the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) for the moderate way in which he stated his case and for the interesting arguments that he adduced. I shall certainly consider all he has said. If in my reply I do not adequately cover any of the points he made, I shall communicate with him to cover the matter in more detail. I propose now to take the points that he made and answer them, I believe correctly, but if there is anything to add I will write to him.
The hon. Gentleman made a point about consultation and suggested that it would have been better if in consolidating these rules we had consulted the interested institutes and others not only on the substance but on the detailed drafting. We consulted, and got agreement, on the substance, but we did not consult


on the detailed drafting. It may be that the hon. Member has a point there and that we should have consulted on the detailed drafting. That is something that I am prepared to consider. I hope that amendments will not be necessary in the full flood which the hon. Member appears to expect.
The second point made by the hon. Gentleman is that even now the matter of retrospectiveness is not clear because of the negative wording of the amendment. I will make the position clear as I understand it. In our view—this is the legal advice that I have—as the rule stands it is not open to the interpretation that it is retrospective. However, interested parties, when they saw the wording, raised the possibility that it might be understood to operate retrospectively. I understand that there are sometimes doubts about the interpretation of laws and rules, and so we decided that, despite our view that it was not open to this interpretation, it would be better to clarify it. Therefore, we have clarified the matter in the amendment.
The amendment states:
Nothing in this Rule shall be construed as imposing upon the Comptroller the duty of making available for public inspection any documents filed with or sent to the Office before 1st November, 1968.
Subject to further legal advice, it seems to me that it must be in that form, because even before 1st November, 1968, the Comptroller had a discretion to reveal such documents. He would be deprived of this discretion if we did not put it in this form. The rule says that he does not have to, but he has, and has had—this was established in a case—discretion. Therefore, it seems to me that the amendment is in the right form.

Mr. Jenkin: It may be my fault, but it seems that the Minister of State has not taken the point about the distinction between regularising for the limited range of documents, which is clearly covered by the point that he has made, and the extension to the new range of documents—the statement of claim, the counterclaim, and so on. The question is whether, if the Order has retrospective effect—I appreciate the Minister's argument—it extends retrospectively in relation to the wider range of documents.

Mr. Dell: I understand that the discretion relates to documents filed in pro-

ceedings. I am prepared to have a further look at the point and consider whether I should write to the hon. Gentleman to extend the explanation that I am giving. However, I understand that this is the correct position.
The hon. Gentleman also said that it was possible for somebody to have something revealed by including in his counter pleadings matters which another party in other pleadings had asked to be kept confidential and not then asking the Comptroller that they should be confidential. The hon. Gentleman suggested that by that course the matter would be revealed and that this would defeat the purpose of the exercise. In our judgment, this is unlikely to happen. If we are wrong in that judgment, that might indeed produce one of the amendments which the hon. Gentleman thinks would be necessary. However, our present view is that that is unlikely to happen.
I think that I have dealt with the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. I repeat my promise that if, on further examination and consultation, I find that any of his points have been inadequately dealt with in my remarks, I will write to him.

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to the Minister of State for the explanation that he has given and for the offer to deal with the matter more fully, if he considers it necessary, in correspondence. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

HIGHCLIFFE CASTLE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. O'Malley.]

11.45 p.m.

Mr. John Cordle: I wish to raise a matter which is of some consequence in my division and has concerned a number of my constituents for a long time. It is that case of Highcliffe Castle, an old and historic building. This case is a test of our determination to stand by the principle of preserving the best of our buildings and countryside. I must pay a tribute to the Ancient Monuments


Society and its secretary, Mr. Bulmer Thomas, a former Member of the House. The Society has done much to secure the preservation of this building.
The castle is, by common consent, a building of outstanding architectural interest set in a scene of great natural beauty. It stands on the Hampshire coast, near Christchurch, looking out towards the Isle of Wight. It was built in the 1830's by Lord Stuart of Rothesay, formerly our ambassador in Paris, and, not unnaturally, he built it in the style of a sixteenth century château. The architect was W. J. Donthorne. It is a magnificent conception in itself, and gets additional interest from the fact that it incorporates features from the sixteenth century manor house of Les Andelys at Rouen, from the ruins of the Benedictine abbey of Jumièges near Rouen, and the church of St. Vigor in the same city.
The castle is in Grade 1 on the Statutory List of Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest, and is now in grave danger of being destroyed. This unhappy situation has come about in this way. After a succession of distinguished private owners, the castle became the property of a Roman Catholic missionary order. Finding the house unsuitable for its purposes and too costly to maintain, it was sold by auction on 21st September, 1967. It was bought for £21,000 by a Bournemouth solicitor who, it is generally assumed, was acting not on his own behalf but on behalf of a group of Bournemouth businessmen whose identities have not been disclosed.
The under-bidder, at £25,000, was a Bournemouth art dealer who would have used the castle for exhibitions of pictures, which would have been an eminently suitable purpose. The excellent body known as the Mutual Households Association Ltd., although it did not enter the auction, has at all times been prepared to buy the house by private treaty and would use it in accordance with its aim to provide flats for elderly people, which would have been another thoroughly suitable purpose.
Before the auction, there had been an important development. The Hampshire County Council submitted a building preservation order which, after a local

inquiry, was confirmed by the Minister of Housing and Local Government. The Minister endorsed his inspector's conclusion that the site should not be developed for new housing, even if the castle should by some mischance be destroyed. This accorded with the strongly-held view of the local planning authority. Attention was drawn at the auction to the terms of a building preservation order, so the new owners were well aware that development would not be permitted.
Although they knew the condition of the building when they bought it and that no development would be permitted, they have taken no steps to put the castle in good order beyond a perfunctory and rather impudent request to the amenity societies for contributions towards the cost of repair, which they put at about £250,000. The solicitor acting on their behalf must have known that the societies, even if they had funds of this order, could not use them to help private owners to maintain their property without losing their charitable status, and this request can therefore be treated only as a case of going through the motions of doing something.
No attempt has been made to protect the castle from vandals, and beatniks have been in the habit of camping there and lighting fires. There was one fire in the building between the making of the building preservation order and its confirmation, but the Minister confirmed his inspector's view that the order should still be confirmed. There has since been another fire at the end of last July, but it was quickly brought under control, and though it increases the cost of repair it does not seriously detract from the architectural interest of the building.
Before this fire there had been one further significant development. This was a planning application by the new owners to put 50 chalets, a car park and toilets in the grounds. It was decisively rejected by the planning committee of Christchurch Borough Council last May. It has become clear that the new owners of the castle bought it in the knowledge that they would not be allowed to demolish it and develop the site, but they have no intention of repairing the building, and hope that if they wait long enough persons and policies will change and that they will be permitted to do


what is expressly forbidden by the building preservation order—develop the site.
As there is an immense demand for houses on this sought-after stretch of coast, their investment of £21,000 could bring them immense profits if they were allowed to succeed. The speculative stake of £21,000 which they have put down would be well worth while if their gamble succeeded. Highcliffe Castle has, therefore, become a test of the effectiveness of our planning and preservation procedures. If it is allowed to go and the owners are allowed to develop the site, it will demonstrate that a determined owner with sufficient energy can defy the procedures laid down in the town and country planning Acts simply by doing nothing to keep his property in good repair.
The body which I have already mentioned, the Mutual Households Association Limited, is still willing to buy the castle and put it in good order for its excellent purposes if it can be assured of a sufficient grant from public funds towards this end. The Association estimates that £550,000 would be needed to repair and rehabilitate the castle and make it ready for residential occupation. This may seem a large sum, but the castle is a very large and magnificent building. Through its basic policy in raising funds, the Association considers that it can provide £400,000, leaving a balance of £150,000 to be provided from outside sources, but this would not have to be provided all at once. The Association considers that three years would be needed to bring its project to completion, and, therefore, a grant of £50,000 for each of three years from the Minister of Housing and Local Government would solve the problem. Even though this is relatively a large sum, it is surely not too much to ask that the Minister should be prepared to consider setting aside such a grant for three years to save this Grade I building and vindicate the town and country planning legislation.
The Historic Buildings Council demurs at the thought of providing £50,000 for each of three years from its annual grant of £550,000, but I believe that one-eleventh of its annual budget is not disproportionate to the case.
It would be open to the Minister to acquire the building by compulsory

means, but I am sure that he would prefer to assist a body such as the Mutual Households Association Limited with a grant rather than take that course. It should be remembered that the Association will be meeting nearly three-quarters of the cost of repairs. The remaining quarter would only have to be found over three years. If the Government are not prepared to provide the full amount, they should at least indicate how much they would be willing to allocate for this purpose. I am sure that the Minister will not plead our grave economic situation as an excuse for doing nothing. First, the necessary grant could come from funds specifically provided for this general purpose. Second, if we are to believe some of his right hon. Friends, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, our economic prospects are rosy and any suggestion of economic difficulties is only a figment of the imagination.
I hope that the Minister can tell us tonight that some grant will be made. In the early stages of this affair the Minister's attitude was wholly admirable, but in recent months he seems to have been getting cold feet, and there appears to have been a weakening of will on his part. I hope that he will recover his original resolve and assure the House and all who are concerned that steps will be taken to ensure that this Grade I building is repaired for use.
If the Minister should in the last resort find himself unable to take the action which I have requested, I trust nevertheless that he will take effective steps to ensure that his building preservation order is not flouted. I know that he is under pressure to withdraw the order and consent to development. I trust that he will stand firm and see that this blatant attempt to frustrate a building preservation order does not succeed.

11.55 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I am happy to support my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle) in his plea for constructive action by the Government in this important matter. It is in his constituency that this significant building stands, but he is appealing for help on a national basis. As one who has been much concerned, for nearly 12 years in the House, in the interest of historic


buildings from the national point of view, I strongly support my hon. Friend in his efforts to ensure that this is not just another of our fine historic buildings which either moulders away or is wilfully destroyed by the developer.
Highcliffe is a building of considerable architectural importance since it contains some exceptionally fine early French architectural features of such distinction that, were the building to be demolished, they should certainly find their way into one of our great national collections. Indeed, our national collections would like to have them if it were impossible to preserve them, so to speak, in situ, although it must be admitted that our national collections have not the room properly to display them, and the best possible solution is to preserve these features where they now are.
I hope that people who read the report of this debate will refer to Volumes 125–6 of Country Life where an admirably illustrated series of articles appears, and they might also refer to the National Monuments Record of Fielden House, only a stone's throw from this building, where a large and comprehensive series of pictures exists of the building in its present state.
True, the building has been sadly ill used and its surroundings damaged due to development before the planning Acts were sufficiently protective, but by no means are the surroundings quite ruined, and there is a fine open prospect down to the sea, which should certainly be preserved in an area which could well do with such an amenity.
The building could be restored and once more be a home for many people, as my hon. Friend suggested. Moreover, the architecture could be preserved, and preserved not just for the enjoyment of those who live in the building but for those who live around and for the nation in general, because public access could easily be arranged even if the building were occupied as a series of homes.
All this could be achieved in a partnership. The Mutual Households Association Limited, to which my hon. Friend referred, would, no doubt, play a significant part here and could turn the building into homes for many people. The Historic Buildings Council has it within

its power to make a grant, though I can appreciate its difficulty here. My hon. Friend is a little optimistic in thinking that it could commit so large a sum—he regards it as small, but it would represent a large part of the Council's limited budget—for such a building. Nevertheless, the Council could contribute.
No doubt, there are other bodies which could help. The local authorities themselves are empowered under the Local Authorities (Historic Buildings) Act, 1962, which we owe to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), to make either a grant or an interest-free loan. So they, too, could help if they really wanted to. There are various charitable bodies which could help. Charitable bodies would not lose their charitable status were they to contribute towards a building where public access could be enjoyed. There is no difficulty there, I believe, provided that the place is not shut away from public enjoyment.
It could, as I say, be a significant and satisfactory partnership if somebody, as well as my hon. Friend, who has a keen interest in the matter, could bring the parties together. It may well be that the Minister could help.
The Civic Amenities Act, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) managed to get through the House, and which has been endorsed and embraced by the latest Town and Country Planning Act, could protect the surroundings for all time. I find it difficult to understand why a conservation area under that Act has not been designated by the local authority. The power to do so already exists, and it could have been done in a matter of days after that power came into effect. There can be no development value in the surroundings. On the other hand, all these measures are somewhat negative and are intended to prevent people from wrecking the place, and what we want is positive action by a number of people to make sure that a historic building may be preserved for future use and enjoyment, not just a sterile preservation, but used as homes and enjoyed by many people.
I hope that all this will be possible, but, if it fails, what next? Are we to allow these distinguished features to crumble away and be destroyed by vandals, as are so many buildings at the


present time? Very little is done until it is far too late to rescue even a part, and I hope that if the worst happens and the building has to be demolished, the parts will be rescued and preserved elsewhere and will not go to the knackers yard of the landscape gardeners, or worse, and be broken up and used as parts of an ornamental rockery. They are far too good for that. I hope that they will be rescued and placed in another building if they cannot be rescued and preserved in situ. After all, they were rescued 130 years ago by the original builder, who rescued them from decay and destruction elsewhere. I hope that they will not be left to rot.
But that is very much a longstop proposal, and I support my hon. Friend in hoping that we can achieve a much more satisfactory solution. There is too little Parliamentary interest in this subject, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend has been able to raise it this evening. Historic buildings are of great importance to the nation, and not just to Britain but to the wide world outside. If we are a nation impoverished and depleted in world influence, at least we have this tremedous interest in historic buildings which many people from all over the world come to see, and I hope that we shall not lose those which remain to us.
This is a matter of some urgency. The Minister has fine new powers, and I hope that he will be able to say something encouraging this evening.

12.2 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): I should like to begin by thanking the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle) and the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) for their interesting speeches, which came from the heart, and also for their constructive suggestions. In many ways they are knocking at an open door. We have certainly not lost interest in this or in a whole range of buildings which are mentioned from time to time.
My own personal interest in the matter arises as much as anything from the fact that I know the area quite well. As a boy, I lived for some years in Christ-church, and one of my cherished memories is of walking from Hinton Admiral Station—we went by train in

those days—to Highcliffe, which was a good deal more rural then. I shall never forget those happy memories.
I know the castle fairly well, and, by another curious personal quirk, the Claretian Missionary Fathers, who had the building for a time, have a large teaching establishment in my constituency. I have heard about the castle from them and I have heard about their problems and the fact that they eventually had to dispose of it, with results which, from the point of view of the building and its future, have been somewhat unfortunate.
It is a very interesting building and it has a number of curious architectural features, although it was constructed only in 1830. The inspector who took the building preservation order inquiry said that the preservation of a building of special architectural and historical interest, and one which was in Grade I category, as Highcliffe Castle is, is always a desirable objective.
Although, even when that inquiry was being held, there had already been the first fire and some neglect, because of the unique siting of the building and its considerable architectural interest and the beautiful surrounding countryside—there are 4½ acres of trees which are preserved by a tree preservation order—the Minister felt that, despite the risk, he should confirm the order.
I do not want to quarrel with the history which the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch gave, because it seemed to be absolutely accurate, except to differ from him on one point. He mentioned the second fire in June of this year. He tended to minimise the effect of it. I have a detailed report by the local planning authority, and the damage is very extensive. It resulted in the destruction of all the internal panelling and the remaining fittings in the library and main reception rooms; the panelling and ceiling of the Octagonal Room was also severely damaged. The whole of the roof over the southern portion of the library and the reception room has collapsed, and the whole of the state rooms on the ground floor not previously damaged by the first fire have been largely gutted. This is a considerable new factor, which does not help us in our desire to see some


useful future for this uniquely sited and very interesting building.
The local authorities have been interested, and as a result of a meeting held by the local planning authority, the Hampshire County Council came to the conclusion that the cost of restoration was far too much for it. The Historic Buildings Council came to the same conclusion. So we start with these two hurdles.
Although I do not want to be too encouraging, there is a new situation as a result of Part V of the new Town and Country Planning Act. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christ-church suggested that we might be losing interest in preserving historic buildings. I hope that he will look at the new powers given to local authorities and the Minister under Part V.
Under that, while individual preservation orders come to an end on 1st January, 1969, every listed building in the country becomes subject to a building preservation order automatically. Any work which would involve demolition of such a building or would affect its character as a listed building will need specific consent from the local planning authority. If such consent is refused, there can be an appeal to the Minister in the same way as there is an appeal against refusal of ordinary planning consent.
Alternatively, if the local authority proposes to allow demolition of a listed building, it must notify the Minister, who will be able to decide whether to call in the application, after a public inquiry, if necessary. These are new powers.

Mr. Robert Cooke: The hon. Gentleman will agree that the powers are somewhat diffuse. Preservation orders extend over a vastly greater number of buildings now and they have less protective effect. Most of the powers are negative.

Mr. Skeffington: I cannot agree. The fact is that the Minister has powers, which he has not had before, to call in the application and hold a public inquiry. It may be that some appeals will come to the Minister as a result of future actions because of that power. I gather that the authorities had a meeting with the owner yesterday, and it may be that

one party or the other will take some action which will give rise to an appeal. I have to be a little careful in what I say and not presume to prejudge any application that comes before us.
As the hon. Member for Bristol, West has said, finance is the dominant question. I would not want to rule out any possibilities of the kinds of scheme which he has in mind. In so far as the Ministry can help in any way—it may not be strictly its business, but, nevertheless, it is the general business of the nation that these great treasures should be preserved—if this can be done not principally at the expense of the public purse, the greater is the obligation on Ministers to see what can be achieved.
There is another power in Section 53 of the Town and Country Planning Act—I mention it not to give great encouragement, but I should put this on record—whereby minimum compensation can be paid where a council proposes to acquire compulsorily a building which has been neglected. The hon. Gentleman mentioned improved economic conditions. Although the economic situation is improving, the great mistake would be to give any idea that we can let up too soon; that is a mistake which Governments have made before.
We shall, no doubt, have a report—if not, I will ask for one—as a result of the meeting with the owners yesterday. I should like to have consultations with all the interested bodies to see whether, with the group which both hon. Members have mentioned, they can put forward a practical proposition, and, in the light of that, see whether it is within our power to take any action which would be helpful.
I agree with the two hon. Members that the site in question is of great significance. It is almost the last piece of coastland which is open. I know that it is the intention of the Hampshire County Council, in its coastal policy, to preserve as much as possible of that which remains unspoilt. Indeed, the county council has dealt firmly with past applications for development. This 850 feet of open coastland is of tremendous importance, and I have considerable faith in the county council's policy. Indeed, the conferences which the Countryside Commission held with the maritime


authorities indicates their sincere attempt to preserve what they have.
On that score, and with the activities of the Countryside Commission, the future position concerning development will be zealously safeguarded by the local authorities and by the Government as a whole.
I therefore thank both hon. Members for raising the matter. I should like to consult the parties to see what we can do. I agree that if a scheme emerges, it would be extremely good if we could preserve this unique building for the future of the country.

Mr. Cordle: I should like to understand clearly the position concerning the

preservation order. Do I understand that it comes to an end on 1st January and that to have it reinstated the local authority must make a new application to the Ministry?

Mr. Skeffington: From 1st January all the listed buildings will automatically get the new status with all the preservation precautions and the additional consents which will be necessary if demolition or alteration is proposed either by the local authority or by the individual owner concerned.

Question put agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.